TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133217; 14366-4_0012 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 - 12 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/873133217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 295 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133092; 14366-4_0295 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 - 295 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/873133092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 372 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132987; 14366-4_0372 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 - 372 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/873132987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 368 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132856; 14366-4_0368 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 - 368 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/873132856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 278 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132771; 14366-4_0278 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 - 278 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/873132771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 400 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132734; 14366-4_0400 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 - 400 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/873132734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 27 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132694; 14366-4_0027 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 - 27 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/873132694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 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 383 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132645; 14366-4_0383 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 - 383 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/873132645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 273 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132619; 14366-4_0273 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 - 273 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/873132619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 382 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132612; 14366-4_0382 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 - 382 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/873132612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 22 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132587; 14366-4_0022 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 - 22 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/873132587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 292 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132541; 14366-4_0292 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 - 292 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/873132541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 288 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132505; 14366-4_0288 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 - 288 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/873132505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 315 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132487; 14366-4_0315 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 - 315 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/873132487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 169 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132470; 14366-4_0169 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 - 169 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/873132470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 290 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132452; 14366-4_0290 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 - 290 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/873132452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 312 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132437; 14366-4_0312 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 - 312 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/873132437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 303 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132386; 14366-4_0303 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 - 303 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/873132386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 166 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132338; 14366-4_0166 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 - 166 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/873132338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 300 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132330; 14366-4_0300 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 - 300 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/873132330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 13 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132302; 14366-4_0013 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 - 13 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/873132302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 421 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132297; 14366-4_0421 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 - 421 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/873132297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 165 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132292; 14366-4_0165 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 - 165 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/873132292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 16 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132281; 14366-4_0016 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 - 16 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/873132281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 210 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132264; 14366-4_0210 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 - 210 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/873132264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 206 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132226; 14366-4_0206 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 - 206 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/873132226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 359 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132216; 14366-4_0359 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 - 359 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/873132216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 364 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132202; 14366-4_0364 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 - 364 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/873132202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 287 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132192; 14366-4_0287 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 - 287 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/873132192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 284 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132191; 14366-4_0284 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 - 284 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/873132191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 410 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132181; 14366-4_0410 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 - 410 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/873132181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 280 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132175; 14366-4_0280 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 - 280 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/873132175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 281 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132167; 14366-4_0281 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 - 281 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/873132167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 222 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132150; 14366-4_0222 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 - 222 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/873132150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 269 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132135; 14366-4_0269 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 - 269 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/873132135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 216 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132123; 14366-4_0216 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 - 216 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/873132123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 193 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132116; 14366-4_0193 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 - 193 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/873132116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 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 268 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132074; 14366-4_0268 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 - 268 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/873132074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 350 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132070; 14366-4_0350 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 - 350 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/873132070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 205 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132062; 14366-4_0205 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 - 205 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/873132062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 240 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132019; 14366-4_0240 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 - 240 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/873132019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 344 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132013; 14366-4_0344 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 - 344 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/873132013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 35 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132000; 14366-4_0035 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 - 35 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/873132000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 159 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131999; 14366-4_0159 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 - 159 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/873131999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 398 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131971; 14366-4_0398 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 - 398 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/873131971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 340 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131943; 14366-4_0340 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 - 340 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/873131943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 302 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131940; 14366-4_0302 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 - 302 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/873131940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 181 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131904; 14366-4_0181 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 - 181 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/873131904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 353 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131890; 14366-4_0353 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 - 353 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/873131890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 219 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131889; 14366-4_0219 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 - 219 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/873131889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 351 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131835; 14366-4_0351 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 - 351 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/873131835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 390 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131834; 14366-4_0390 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 - 390 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/873131834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 212 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131824; 14366-4_0212 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 - 212 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/873131824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 420 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131813; 14366-4_0420 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 - 420 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/873131813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 6 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131807; 14366-4_0006 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 - 6 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/873131807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 133 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131805; 14366-4_0133 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 - 133 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/873131805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 352 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131772; 14366-4_0352 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 - 352 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/873131772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 187 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131725; 14366-4_0187 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 - 187 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/873131725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 319 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131691; 14366-4_0319 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 - 319 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/873131691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 119 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131685; 14366-4_0119 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 - 119 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/873131685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 363 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131666; 14366-4_0363 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 - 363 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/873131666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 116 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131654; 14366-4_0116 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 - 116 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/873131654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 360 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131584; 14366-4_0360 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 - 360 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/873131584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 267 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131549; 14366-4_0267 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 - 267 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/873131549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 161 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131462; 14366-4_0161 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 - 161 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/873131462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 249 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131433; 14366-4_0249 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 - 249 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/873131433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 154 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131381; 14366-4_0154 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 - 154 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/873131381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 246 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131363; 14366-4_0246 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 - 246 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/873131363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 152 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131340; 14366-4_0152 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 - 152 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/873131340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 424 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131327; 14366-4_0424 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 - 424 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/873131327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 175 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131326; 14366-4_0175 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 - 175 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/873131326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 259 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131318; 14366-4_0259 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 - 259 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/873131318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 232 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131298; 14366-4_0232 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 - 232 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/873131298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 43 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131284; 14366-4_0043 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 - 43 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/873131284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 237 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131222; 14366-4_0237 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 - 237 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/873131222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 150 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131193; 14366-4_0150 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 - 150 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/873131193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 265 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131149; 14366-4_0265 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 - 265 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/873131149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 34 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131146; 14366-4_0034 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 - 34 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/873131146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 138 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131133; 14366-4_0138 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 - 138 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/873131133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 356 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131123; 14366-4_0356 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 - 356 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/873131123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 145 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131111; 14366-4_0145 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 - 145 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/873131111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 28 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131102; 14366-4_0028 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 - 28 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/873131102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 349 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131099; 14366-4_0349 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 - 349 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/873131099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 396 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131060; 14366-4_0396 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 - 396 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/873131060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 384 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131020; 14366-4_0384 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 - 384 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/873131020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 376 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130969; 14366-4_0376 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 - 376 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/873130969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 67 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130959; 14366-4_0067 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 - 67 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/873130959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Human+Systems+Management&rft.atitle=Knowledge+management+and+intellectual+capital+as+a+paradigm+of+value+creation&rft.au=Rastogi%2C+P+N&rft.aulast=Rastogi&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2002-10-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=229&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Human+Systems+Management&rft.issn=01672533&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 117 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130911; 14366-4_0117 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 - 117 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/873130911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 320 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130864; 14366-4_0320 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 - 320 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/873130864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 87 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130862; 14366-4_0087 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 - 87 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/873130862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 95 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130852; 14366-4_0095 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 - 95 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/873130852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 75 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130762; 14366-4_0075 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 - 75 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/873130762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 26 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130744; 14366-4_0026 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 - 26 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/873130744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 68 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130503; 14366-4_0068 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 - 68 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/873130503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 213 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130487; 14366-4_0213 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 - 213 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/873130487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 208 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130440; 14366-4_0208 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 - 208 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/873130440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 209 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130420; 14366-4_0209 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 - 209 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/873130420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 317 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130398; 14366-4_0317 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 - 317 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/873130398?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 200 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130388; 14366-4_0200 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 - 200 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/873130388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 184 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130369; 14366-4_0184 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 - 184 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/873130369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 196 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130334; 14366-4_0196 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 - 196 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/873130334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 107 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130304; 14366-4_0107 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 - 107 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/873130304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 230 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130302; 14366-4_0230 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 - 230 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/873130302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 221 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130236; 14366-4_0221 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 - 221 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/873130236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 104 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130232; 14366-4_0104 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 - 104 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/873130232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 129 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130174; 14366-4_0129 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 - 129 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/873130174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 207 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130066; 14366-4_0207 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 - 207 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/873130066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 226 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130001; 14366-4_0226 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 - 226 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/873130001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 186 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129909; 14366-4_0186 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 - 186 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/873129909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 182 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129822; 14366-4_0182 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 - 182 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/873129822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 179 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129720; 14366-4_0179 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 - 179 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/873129720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Albert&rft.date=1990-03-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=119&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Social+Indicators+Research&rft.issn=03038300&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2FBF00354836 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 403 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129574; 14366-4_0403 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 - 403 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/873129574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 45 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129484; 14366-4_0045 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 - 45 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/873129484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 335 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129284; 14366-4_0335 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 - 335 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/873129284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 234 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129220; 14366-4_0234 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 - 234 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/873129220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 334 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129163; 14366-4_0334 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 - 334 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/873129163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 241 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129134; 14366-4_0241 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 - 241 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/873129134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Arunya&rft.date=2005-09-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=431&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+for+the+Advancement+of+Counselling&rft.issn=01650653&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10447-005-8204-x 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 132 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129086; 14366-4_0132 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 - 132 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/873129086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1895-01-01&rft.volume=LII&rft.issue=&rft.spage=234&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Nature&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 406 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129035; 14366-4_0406 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 - 406 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/873129035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1983-08-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=259&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Australian+Journal+of+Psychology&rft.issn=00049530&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F00049538308255070 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 336 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128944; 14366-4_0336 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 - 336 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/873128944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 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 88 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128747; 14366-4_0088 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 - 88 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/873128747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 72 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128686; 14366-4_0072 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 - 72 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/873128686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 306 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128016; 14366-4_0306 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 - 306 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/873128016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Quarterly+Journal+of+Studies+on+Alcohol&rft.atitle=Imprisoned+abnormal+drinkers%3A+application+of+the+Bowman-Jellinek+classification+schedule+to+an+institutional+sample.+Part+I.+Review+and+analysis+of+data&rft.au=Floch%2C+Maurice&rft.aulast=Floch&rft.aufirst=Maurice&rft.date=1947-01-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=&rft.spage=518&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Quarterly+Journal+of+Studies+on+Alcohol&rft.issn=00335649&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 78 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128013; 14366-4_0078 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 - 78 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/873128013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 56 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127987; 14366-4_0056 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 - 56 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/873127987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annual+Review+of+Psychology&rft.atitle=Personality%2C+well-being%2C+and+health&rft.au=Friedman%2C+Howard+S.%3BKern%2C+Margaret+L.&rft.aulast=Friedman&rft.aufirst=Howard&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=&rft.spage=719&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annual+Review+of+Psychology&rft.issn=00664308&rft_id=info:doi/10.1146%2Fannurev-psych-010213-115123 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 387 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127977; 14366-4_0387 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 - 387 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/873127977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 214 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127953; 14366-4_0214 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 - 214 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/873127953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2016-08-30&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=35&rft.spage=9769&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PNAS+Proceedings+of+the+National+Academy+of+Sciences+of+the+United+States+of+America&rft.issn=00278424&rft_id=info:doi/10.1073%2Fpnas.1519998113 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 105 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127887; 14366-4_0105 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 - 105 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/873127887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 101 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127858; 14366-4_0101 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 - 101 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/873127858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=14&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Mental+Health&rft.issn=00207411&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F00207411.1976.11448731 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 311 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127810; 14366-4_0311 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 - 311 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/873127810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Gerben&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=110&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Adult+Development&rft.issn=10680667&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10804-009-9082-y 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 83 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127175; 14366-4_0083 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 - 83 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/873127175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 61 of 49] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126894; 14366-4_0061 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 - 61 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/873126894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Geriatrics+Society&rft.issn=00028614&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1532-5415.2006.00970.x 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 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 873130734; 14375-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat on the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have 6 acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered to meet project objectives are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Four alternative plans and a No Action alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 5, the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization and therefore, Alternative 11, a subset of the TSP, is the recommended increment of construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $345 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100216, Draft EIS--523 pages, Appendices--686 pages, June 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 754908405; 14375 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat on the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have 6 acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered to meet project objectives are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Four alternative plans and a No Action alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 5, the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization and therefore, Alternative 11, a subset of the TSP, is the recommended increment of construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $345 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100216, Draft EIS--523 pages, Appendices--686 pages, June 4, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132220; 14372-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873132220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132204; 14372-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873132204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873131161; 14373-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=326&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+Positive+Psychology&rft.issn=17439760&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F17439760.2015.1081971 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130974; 14372-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130926; 14372-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130915; 14372-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=737&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Addiction&rft.issn=09652140&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1360-0443.2005.01036.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 17 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130905; 14372-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130897; 14372-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 11 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130875; 14372-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130867; 14372-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873130867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130222; 14373-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130214; 14373-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130202; 14373-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129797; 14373-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129787; 14373-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129775; 14373-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129763; 14373-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129758; 14373-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129739; 14373-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129687; 14373-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129676; 14373-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129651; 14373-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129179; 14373-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129165; 14373-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129154; 14373-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128299; 14372-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128289; 14372-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128282; 14372-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128275; 14372-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128268; 14372-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128255; 14372-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128248; 14372-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128243; 14372-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128237; 14372-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873128237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=EFE+News+Service&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873127213; 14372-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873127213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873127208; 14372-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/873127208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 754908420; 14373 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA HIGH-SPEED MAGLEV PROJECT: THE PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT OF MAGNETIC LEVIATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, ALLEGHENY AND WESTMORELAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 754908309; 14372 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project in Allegheny and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania are proposed. High-speed maglev technology utilizes non-contact, electromagnetic forces to levitate, guide, and propel vehicles along a fixed guideway. In accordance with the congressional directives of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a Programmatic EIS in April 2000 for the Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, identified alternative approaches, and demonstrated the suitability of this transportation technology. In June 2001, the FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD), advancing the Pennsylvania High-speed Maglev Project into the site-specific EIS phase of the program. Preliminary alternatives were developed, including intermodal connections, no-build and build alternative maglev alignments and passenger station locations, and roadway improvements associated with the proposed stations. The project would be constructed between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIA), the City of Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area (all in Allegheny County), and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area in Westmoreland County. This final EIS considers the No-Build Alternative and the environmentally preferred build alternative, consisting of the A-5 South alignment, B-4 West alignment, and the C6 alignment. The proposed project would extend for 54 miles with an additional three miles to accommodate guideway access to the visitor/maintenance facility near PIA. The proposed action would also include the construction of five passenger stations and associated roadway improvements to provide or improve access to the stations. Passenger stations would be located at the PIA Landside Terminal, nearby at Enlow Road, in Downtown Pittsburgh at Steel Plaza, in the Monroeville/Penn Hills area at Thompson Run, and in the Greensburg/Hempfield area at the Toll Route 66/Route 136 interchange. A risk-based assessment utilizing an 80 percent probability projects Section A becoming operational by the end of 2013, Section B becoming operational by mid 2014, and Section C becoming operational by the end of 2015. The cost of developing the system is now estimated to be $5.325 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, including all capital costs and associated roadway improvements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would encourage transfer of maglev technology to other areas of the United States currently investigating the feasibility of similar transportation systems; provide rapid, convenient, and reliable transportation between major population and employment centers and the PIA. More specifically, the system would extend the existing airport, transit, and highway infrastructure beyond current expected usefulness; maximize the utilization and capability of PIA by providing intermodal connections at PIA, Pittsburgh, the Monroeville/Penn Hills area, and the Greensburg/Hempfield Township area; improve regional air quality; facilitate joint development opportunities at maglev station areas; promote regional economic development; and support comprehensive land use planning and smart growth initiatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, wetlands, stream channel, floodplain, forested land, rangeland, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status bat, bird, and plant species. Two historic sites and five parkland resources would be affected by project implementation. Construction workers would encounter sites containing contaminated materials, including hazardous wastes. There would be 92 potential severe noise impacts to single residences within the preferred alignment. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), 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 06-0015D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100213, Final EIS--696 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FRA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/754908309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+HIGH-SPEED+MAGLEV+PROJECT%3A+THE+PENNSYLVANIA+PROJECT+OF+MAGNETIC+LEVIATION+TRANSPORTATION+TECHNOLOGY+DEPLOYMENT+PROGRAM%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WESTMORELAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 33 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873132198; 14369-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 30 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131106; 14369-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 28 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131074; 14369-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 27 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131063; 14369-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 24 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131045; 14369-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 23 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131036; 14369-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Targeted+News+Service&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 22 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131025; 14369-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 21 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873131012; 14369-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 20 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130997; 14369-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 32 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130904; 14369-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 31 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130889; 14369-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Masoud&rft.date=2015-04-02&rft.volume=520&rft.issue=7545&rft.spage=94&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Nature&rft.issn=00280836&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 26 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130880; 14369-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=US+Fed+News+Service%2C+Including+US+State+News&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 25 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130869; 14369-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=AllAfrica.com&rft.atitle=Economic+Progress+in+Liberia&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873130753; 14369-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.+%5BPart+7+of+41%5D&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129604; 14369-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PR+Newswire+Africa&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129567; 14369-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=AllAfrica.com&rft.atitle=Faure+Gnassingbe+se+felicite+du+nouvel+appui+de+la+BM&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 18 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129521; 14369-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 17 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129504; 14369-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 16 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129488; 14369-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 15 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129452; 14369-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PR+Newswire+Africa&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873129415; 14369-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128914; 14369-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128870; 14369-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128863; 14369-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 14 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128772; 14369-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128761; 14369-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 13 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128748; 14369-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128740; 14369-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128728; 14369-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=PLoS+One&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0122341 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 41 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128194; 14369-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 40 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128185; 14369-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 39 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128173; 14369-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 38 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128156; 14369-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 36 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873128128; 14369-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 35 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873127745; 14369-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AllAfrica.com&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. [Part 34 of 41] T2 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 873127739; 14369-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1331&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cellular+and+Molecular+Life+Sciences&rft.issn=1420682X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00018-014-1800-3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN AREA FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, NORTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA. AN - 754909746; 14369 AB - PURPOSE: Flood risk management measures studied under a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement between the federal government and the cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are proposed. Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, are on the west and east banks, respectively, of the Red River of the North approximately 150 miles south of the Canada/United States border. The Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple and Rush Rivers in North Dakota and the Buffalo River in Minnesota also cross the study area which is mostly located in the regulatory floodplain. The Red River of the North has exceeded the flood stage of 18 feet in 47 of the past 108 years, and every year from 1993 through 2010. Average annual flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area are estimated to be over $195.9 million in the future. In addition to the No Action Alternative that would continue emergency measures, the study analyzed non-structural measures, flood barriers (including levees), increased conveyance (including diversion channels), and flood storage. Three significant action plans were identified: the Minnesota Short Diversion with a 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity (MN40k); the North Dakota East Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (ND35k); and the Minnesota Short Diversion with 35,000 cfs capacity (MN35k). The MN35k diversion channel, which is the federally comparable plan (FCP), would be 25 miles long with a base width of 360 feet and maximum depth of 30 feet. The plan would include 20 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and a Red River control structure. The diversion channel and spoil banks would have a construction footprint of 6,415 acres. The Red River control structure at the south end of the diversion channel would limit the flow of water in the natural channel and divert excess flows around the urban area. In addition, the FCP would include two smaller channels upstream of the Red River control structure to prevent stage increases upstream of the project along the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. The plan would have a tie-back levee at the southern limits of the project. The ND35k diversion channel, which is the tentatively selected and locally preferred plan (LPP), would be 36 miles long and would incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River diversion channel. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 300 feet and has a maximum depth of 29 feet. The plan would include 18 highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and would have a construction footprint of 6,560 acres. The ND35k diversion would begin four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers. A connecting channel between the rivers would convey flow from the Red River to the diversion channel inlet on the west side of the Wild Rice River. A combination of control structures at the south end of the project, along with weirs at the west end of the connecting channel and at the entrance to the diversion channel would control the flow split between the river channels and the diversion channel. The diversion would also cross the Sheyenne, Maple, Lower Rush, and Rush Rivers. At the Sheyenne and Maple rivers, structures would be necessary to allow base flows to follow the natural river channel. Flows in excess of a 50-percent chance event would be diverted into the diversion channel. The Lower Rush, and Rush rivers would have drop structures that would drop the entire flow of those rivers into the diversion channel. Recreation features would include multipurpose trails, interpretive signage, benches, and trailheads with parking facilities. The total estimated fist cost of the LPP based on 2009 price levels is $1.272 billion and the overall cost-benefit ratio of the plan is 2.27. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood risk, flood damages, and flood protection costs in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area. Features of the plan would also restore or improve degraded riverine and riparian habitat in and along the Red River of the North, Wild Rice River, Sheyenne River, and Buffalo River and provide additional wetland habitat and recreational opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Modifications to water flow and timing would cause downstream impacts. The Minnesota and North Dakota diversion alignments would directly impact 17 acres and 33 acres of wetlands, respectively. Both plans could affect sediment transport, accretion, and erosion, which are critical forces in shaping and maintaining aquatic habitat. The FCP and LPP would remove 5,700 and 5,400 acres of prime and unique farmland from operation, respectively. The North Dakota alignment would require an estimated six residential or farmstead relocations, while the Minnesota alignment would require five relocations. LEGAL MANDATES: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100210, 382 pages and CD-ROM, June 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Bridges KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Red River of the North KW - Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Funding KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FARGO-MOORHEAD+METROPOLITAN+AREA+FLOOD+RISK+MANAGEMENT%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+AND+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Laboratory Investigation of Bedform Geometry under Regular and Irregular Surface Gravity Waves AN - 954664027; 16388195 AB - Bedform (ripple) geometry is an important feature in the nearshore that can significantly enhance wave energy dissipation. Ripples regulate wave transformation and influence the sediment transport phenomenon. These issues are of particular importance when determining beach erosion and investigating other coastal processes. Although numerous studies have addressed the issue of bedform geometry under surface gravity waves, no single model is considered adequate. The relative roughness and subsequent wave energy dissipation are governed by attributes that include ripple height and wavelength. The comparatively large wave tank facility at Davidson Laboratory (Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point on the Hudson, Hoboken, New Jersey) provided an ideal opportunity for investigating bedform features for a flat bed, as well as the novel study of a sloped sediment bed. Our results provide new data that strengthen prior relationships and demonstrate that a sloped surface may be modeled in a similar fashion to a flat sediment bed. We have successfully compared irregular waves from the laboratory to field measurements and selected an existing model that is consistent with our data. Perhaps one of the most significant conclusions from this research is that the identified models for ripple dimensions on the flat surface predict values for bedform geometry on the sloped surface as well. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Messaros, Roy C AU - Bruno, Michael S AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278-0090, U.S.A., roy.c.messaros@@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/06/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 01 SP - 94 EP - 103 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 27 IS - 6A SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Bedform geometry KW - ripple geometry KW - ripple height KW - ripple wavelength KW - bottom orbital excursion amplitude KW - sloped sediment bed KW - Gravity Waves KW - Sedimentary Structures KW - Surface gravity waves KW - Wave energy KW - Waves KW - Sediment transport KW - Bed forms KW - Beaches KW - Laboratories KW - Energy Dissipation KW - River Beds KW - Sediments KW - wave energy KW - Model Studies KW - Wavelengths KW - Erosion KW - ANW, USA, New Jersey KW - Surface roughness KW - Wave height KW - Irregular waves KW - Beach erosion KW - Wave tanks KW - Technology KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - Q2 09406:Energy from the sea KW - SW 7060:Research facilities UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954664027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Laboratory+Investigation+of+Bedform+Geometry+under+Regular+and+Irregular+Surface+Gravity+Waves&rft.au=Messaros%2C+Roy+C%3BBruno%2C+Michael+S&rft.aulast=Messaros&rft.aufirst=Roy&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=6A&rft.spage=94&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-09-00062.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Surface roughness; Surface gravity waves; Wave height; Wave energy; Sediment transport; Irregular waves; Beach erosion; Bed forms; Wave tanks; Beaches; Erosion; wave energy; Technology; Gravity Waves; Sedimentary Structures; Laboratories; Energy Dissipation; Waves; River Beds; Sediments; Wavelengths; Model Studies; ANW, USA, New Jersey DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00062.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Neural network modeling applications in active slope stability problems AN - 921718000; 2012-024389 AB - A back propagation artificial neural network approach is applied to three common challenges in engineering geology: (1) characterization of subsurface geometry/position of the slip (or failure surface) of active landslides, (2) assessment of slope displacements based on ground water elevation and climate, and (3) assessment of groundwater elevations based on climate data. Series of neural network models are trained, validated, and applied to a landslide study along Lake Michigan and cases from the literature. The subsurface characterization results are also compared to a limit equilibrium circular failure surface search with specific adopted boundary conditions. It is determined that the neural network models predict slip surfaces better than the limit equilibrium slip surface search using the most conservative criteria. Displacements and groundwater elevations are also predicted fairly well, in real time. The models' ability to predict displacements and groundwater elevations provides a foundational framework for building future warning systems with additional inputs. Copyright 2009 Springer-Verlag JF - Environmental Earth Sciences AU - Kaunda, Rennie B AU - Chase, Ronald B AU - Kehew, Alan E AU - Kaugars, Karlis AU - Selegean, James P Y1 - 2010/06// PY - 2010 DA - June 2010 SP - 1545 EP - 1558 PB - Springer, Berlin VL - 60 IS - 7 SN - 1866-6280, 1866-6280 KW - United States KW - Miami Park South Michigan KW - Alps KW - Allegan County Michigan KW - England KW - Europe KW - erosion features KW - displacements KW - Great Britain KW - France KW - Lake Michigan KW - mass movements KW - buildings KW - La Mure Landslide KW - Great Lakes KW - neural networks KW - faults KW - Michigan Lower Peninsula KW - soil mechanics KW - North America KW - failures KW - shore features KW - Western Europe KW - Derbyshire England KW - landform evolution KW - United Kingdom KW - geometry KW - models KW - landslides KW - bluffs KW - Mam Tor Landslide KW - French Alps KW - creep KW - coastal environment KW - Michigan KW - slope stability KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/921718000?accountid=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+Earth+Sciences&rft.atitle=Neural+network+modeling+applications+in+active+slope+stability+problems&rft.au=Kaunda%2C+Rennie+B%3BChase%2C+Ronald+B%3BKehew%2C+Alan+E%3BKaugars%2C+Karlis%3BSelegean%2C+James+P&rft.aulast=Kaunda&rft.aufirst=Rennie&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1545&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Earth+Sciences&rft.issn=18666280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12665-009-0290-3 L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/1866-6280 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 38 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Allegan County Michigan; Alps; bluffs; buildings; coastal environment; creep; Derbyshire England; displacements; England; erosion features; Europe; failures; faults; France; French Alps; geometry; Great Britain; Great Lakes; La Mure Landslide; Lake Michigan; landform evolution; landslides; Mam Tor Landslide; mass movements; Miami Park South Michigan; Michigan; Michigan Lower Peninsula; models; neural networks; North America; shore features; slope stability; soil mechanics; United Kingdom; United States; Western Europe DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0290-3 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Calculation of beach change under interacting cross-shore and longshore processes AN - 898160949; 2011-086514 AB - This paper presents a mathematical approach and numerical model that simulates beach and dune change in response to cross-shore processes of dune growth by wind and dune erosion by storms, and by gradients in longshore sand transport that will alter shoreline position. Sub-aerial transport processes are represented, whereas sub-aqueous transport is neglected. The system is tightly coupled morphologically, with the berm playing a central role. For example, the potential for sand to be transported to the dune by wind depends on berm width, and sand lost in erosion of the dune during storms can widen the berm. Morphologic equilibrium considerations are introduced to improve reliability of predictions and stability of the non-linear model. An analytical solution is given under simplification to illustrate properties of the model. Sensitivity tests with the numerical solution of the coupled equations demonstrate model performance, with one test exploring beach and dune response to potential increase in storm-wave height with global warming. Finally, the numerical model is applied to examine the consequences of groin shortening at Westhampton Beach, Long Island, New York, as an alternative for providing a sand supply to the down-drift beach. Results indicate that the sand will be released over several decades as the shoreline and dune move landward in adjustment to the new equilibrium condition with the shortened groins. JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Hanson, Hans AU - Larson, Magnus AU - Kraus, Nicholas C Y1 - 2010/06// PY - 2010 DA - June 2010 SP - 610 EP - 619 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 57 IS - 6 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - United States KW - eolian features KW - dunes KW - erosion KW - data processing KW - Suffolk County New York KW - beaches KW - transport KW - Westhampton Beach New York KW - digital simulation KW - sediments KW - coastal dunes KW - beach profiles KW - Long Island KW - sand KW - shore features KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - landform evolution KW - sedimentation KW - shorelines KW - water erosion KW - mathematical models KW - New York KW - marine installations KW - groins KW - wind transport KW - coastal sedimentation KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898160949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=Calculation+of+beach+change+under+interacting+cross-shore+and+longshore+processes&rft.au=Hanson%2C+Hans%3BLarson%2C+Magnus%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Hanson&rft.aufirst=Hans&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=610&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2010.02.002 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783839 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach profiles; beaches; clastic sediments; coastal dunes; coastal sedimentation; data processing; digital simulation; dunes; eolian features; erosion; groins; landform evolution; Long Island; marine installations; mathematical models; New York; numerical models; sand; sediment transport; sedimentation; sediments; shore features; shorelines; Suffolk County New York; transport; United States; water erosion; Westhampton Beach New York; wind transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.02.002 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 27 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130703; 14368-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 26 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130687; 14368-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 25 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130671; 14368-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 24 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130658; 14368-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130642; 14368-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130629; 14368-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130611; 14368-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130589; 14368-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130579; 14368-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130565; 14368-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130556; 14368-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130550; 14368-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 38 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130337; 14368-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 37 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130326; 14368-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 36 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130319; 14368-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 35 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130309; 14368-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 33 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130296; 14368-9_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 32 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130286; 14368-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 29 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130276; 14368-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 28 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130263; 14368-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130253; 14368-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130238; 14368-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130227; 14368-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129543; 14368-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129515; 14368-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 31 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129186; 14368-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 30 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129156; 14368-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129136; 14368-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129126; 14368-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 20 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129113; 14368-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 19 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129095; 14368-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129070; 14368-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129048; 14368-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129030; 14368-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 12 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129010; 14368-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128987; 14368-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128964; 14368-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 34 of 38] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128832; 14368-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 816526963; 14367-100208_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 816526956; 14367-100208_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 816526890; 14367-100208_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 816526863; 14367-100208_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 816526852; 14367-100208_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRAC 2005 DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA. AN - 754908285; 14367 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the surplus non-reverting property generated by the mandated closure of Fort Monroe, Virgina are proposed. The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended closure of Fort Monroe, a 565-acre Army garrison located on Old Point Comfort at the southeastern tip of the Virginia Lower Penninsula between Hampton Roads and the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The 565-acre amount does not include 77 additional acres that has accreted along its shorelines, but does include nearly 165 acres that are submerged. The Fort Monroe property is almost completely surrounded by the water of the lower Chesapeake Bay, the harbor of Hampton Roads, and Mill Creek. The installation's northern extension ties into land in the City of Hampton. A large number of historically significant structures and sites are located within Fort Monroe and it was listed on the National Register of Historic places in 1966. Nonfederal facilities located on Fort Monroe include the Chamberlin, Saint Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church and Rectory, and the Old Point National Bank. The Old Point Comfort Lighthouse is owned and operated by the Coast Guard. Fort Monroe also includes grass-covered vacant land, wetlands, shallow water areas, beaches, paved roads, and parking lots. Moves of tenant organizations are planned to be complete by September 15, 2011, the date on which the Army must cease performance of its active Army missions at Fort Monroe. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the early transfer alternative, the Army would utilize various property transfer and disposal methods to allow for reuse. Under the traditional disposal alternative, the Army would transfer or dispose of property once environmental remediation is completed for individual parcels of the installation. The caretaker status alternative would arise in the event the Army is unable to dispose of any or all portions of the non-reverting property within the period of initial maintenance. The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority has developed a reuse plan based on five essentials: protecting the historical significance of Fort Monroe; assuring the property is open and accessible; establishing a large-scale open park space, economic sustainability; and new development within strict limitations. Three reuse scenarios, based on a range of redevelopment intensities, are evaluated as secondary actions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of excess nonreverting property through available methods including economic development conveyance, public benefit disposal conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. If the disposal of BRAC properties were delayed, the Army would employ two levels of maintenance, an initial level from the time of operational closure until conveyance, and long-term maintenance in the unlikely event the property were not transferred. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Encumbrances that would apply at the time of transfer or conveyance include: land use restrictions, protection of historic properties and cemeteries, floodplains, munitions, asbestos-containing materials, and lead hazards. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0348D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100208, 1,278 pages, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Wastes KW - Bays KW - Carcinogens KW - Cemeteries KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Scenic Areas KW - Shores KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Fort Monroe Virginia KW - Virginia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=BRAC+2005+DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MONROE%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile District; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Ship-To-Shore Causeway and Rapid Bridge Replacement System T2 - 2010 Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology (PACON 2010) AN - 754309909; 5866345 JF - 2010 Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology (PACON 2010) AU - Resio, Donald AU - Fowler, Jimmy AU - Boc, Stanley Y1 - 2010/06/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jun 01 KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754309909?accountid=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+Pacific+Congress+on+Marine+Science+and+Technology+%28PACON+2010%29&rft.atitle=Ship-To-Shore+Causeway+and+Rapid+Bridge+Replacement+System&rft.au=Resio%2C+Donald%3BFowler%2C+Jimmy%3BBoc%2C+Stanley&rft.aulast=Resio&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Pacific+Congress+on+Marine+Science+and+Technology+%28PACON+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://blog.hawaii.edu/pacon/files/2009/10/5.25.2010_PACON-Final-Progr LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Army Sustainable Development AN - 746160573; 13110968 AB - Since the first Earth Day in 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been considering the environmental impacts of its work. Roughly 20 years after that milestone day, Lt. Gen. Henry J. Hatch, P.E., M.SAME, USA (Ret.), the 48th Army Chief of Engineers, laid out an eloquent vision for taking care of the environment, stating that environmental ethics and values must be a "bone-deep part of our way of doing business." In 2002, USACE unveiled its Environmental Operating Principles, which call for sustainability and controlling mission activities to protect and enhance the environment. JF - Military Engineer AU - Giardina, A AU - Coho, J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, antonia.giardina@us.army.mil Y1 - 2010/06// PY - 2010 DA - Jun 2010 SP - 71 EP - 72 VL - 102 IS - 665 SN - 0026-3982, 0026-3982 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - USA KW - Vision KW - Environmental impact KW - Sustainable development KW - Military KW - environmental ethics KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/746160573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Military+Engineer&rft.atitle=Army+Sustainable+Development&rft.au=Giardina%2C+A%3BCoho%2C+J&rft.aulast=Giardina&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=665&rft.spage=71&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Military+Engineer&rft.issn=00263982&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Vision; Environmental impact; Sustainable development; Military; environmental ethics; USA ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Use of Temperature-Sensitive Transmitters to Monitor the Temperature Profiles of Hibernating Bats Affected with White-Nose Syndrome AN - 745708406; 13197909 AB - In temperate ecosystems, hibernation allows bats to survive long periods of limited prey and water availability during colder months. Despite the extended amount of time some bats spend in hibernation, researchers have only recently been able to study the hibernation ecology of bats under natural conditions. With the emergence of white-nose syndrome (WNS), a mysterious disease presently killing large numbers of bats during the hibernation period in the northeastern United States, expanding our knowledge of hibernation ecology and natural history has become more crucial. To collect such data, we used temperature-sensitive radio transmitters and data loggers to monitor the skin temperatures (Tsk) of 6 bats (5 Myotis lucifugus [Little Brown Bat], and 1 Myotis septentrionalis [Northern Long-eared Bat]) hibernating in Mount Aeolus Cave, VT in late winter 2008. We recorded Tsk every 14 minutes for the life of the transmitters. We were able to monitor Tsk from near ambient temperatures to above 30 degree C Arousals occurred immediately before the signals were lost and at a time of increased numbers of bats observed on the landscape, thereby suggesting the emergence (and subsequent death) of bats. Our observations provide first data on the hibernating ecology of WNS-affected bats under natural conditions. JF - Northeastern Naturalist AU - Britzke, Eric R AU - Sewell, Price AU - Hohmann, Matthew G AU - Smith, Ryan AU - Darling, Scott R Y1 - 2010/06// PY - 2010 DA - Jun 2010 SP - 239 EP - 246 PB - Humboldt Field Research Institute VL - 17 IS - 2 SN - 1092-6194, 1092-6194 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Temperature effects KW - Data processing KW - Skin KW - Arousal KW - Landscape KW - Myotis lucifugus KW - Myotis septentrionalis KW - Water availability KW - Hibernation KW - Caves KW - Aeolus KW - Prey KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/745708406?accountid=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=Northeastern+Naturalist&rft.atitle=Use+of+Temperature-Sensitive+Transmitters+to+Monitor+the+Temperature+Profiles+of+Hibernating+Bats+Affected+with+White-Nose+Syndrome&rft.au=Britzke%2C+Eric+R%3BSewell%2C+Price%3BHohmann%2C+Matthew+G%3BSmith%2C+Ryan%3BDarling%2C+Scott+R&rft.aulast=Britzke&rft.aufirst=Eric&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=239&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Northeastern+Naturalist&rft.issn=10926194&rft_id=info:doi/10.1656%2F045.017.0207 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Skin; Data processing; Arousal; Landscape; Caves; Water availability; Prey; Hibernation; Aeolus; Myotis septentrionalis; Myotis lucifugus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/045.017.0207 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I-485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 15236420; 14368 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of Monroe or along existing US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives (DSAs). Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 DSAs are analyzed in this final EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D is $777.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's right-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0198D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100209, Volume 1--210 pages and maps, Volume 2: Appendices--450 pages, Volume 3: Appendices--428 pages; and CD-ROM, June 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I-485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827341; 14357-100206_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827334; 14357-100206_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827330; 14357-100206_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827324; 14357-100206_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827162; 14357-100206_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756827153; 14357-100206_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/756827153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWBERG DUNDEE BYPASS PROJECT, YAMHILL AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 754907814; 14357 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an 11-mile, four-travel lane, access-controlled expressway around the cities of Newberg and Dundee in Yamhill County, Oregon is proposed. The Newberg Dundee Bypass (Bypass) project would include the Bypass, four interchanges, and changes to local roads and streets that need to be relocated for the Bypass. Over the last 10 years, traffic on Oregon 99W in downtown Newberg and Dundee has increased 40 percent. By 2030, traffic is estimated to increase another 40 to 80 percent. Throughout the week, traffic on Oregon 99W backs up for more than a mile in both directions through Dundee, where Oregon 99W has only one travel lane in each direction. The Tier 1 process for the proposed project resulted in a 2005 Record of Decision which selected the Bypass Approved Corridor (Corridor) as the location to build the proposed project. This Tier 2 draft EIS presents more detailed information on existing conditions in the project area, and evaluates a No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative with its various design options and local circulation options. The design options in the Build Alternative provide choices for the Bypass roadway and interchanges, while local circulation options provide choices for the changes to local roads and streets that would be needed because of the Bypass. The Bypass would be located along the south sides of Newberg and Dundee, extending from the Oregon 99W/Oregon 18 junction near Dayton (approximately Oregon 18 milepost 51.6) to just past the top of Rex Hill, east of Newberg (approximately Oregon 99W milepost 19.6). The four interchanges would include locations at each end of the Bypass (Dayton Interchange and East Newberg Interchange) and at two intermediate locations (East Dundee Interchange and Oregon 219 Interchange). Local circulation changes would include reconnections of local roads and streets that are disrupted by the Bypass and locations for local roads crossing over the Bypass. The Build Alternative would have the following characteristics throughout its entire length: operating speeds of 55 miles per hour; four mainline travel lanes (two in each direction), each 12 feet wide; paved shoulders (4 feet wide inside and 10 to 12 feet wide outside); full access control along the Bypass; an average median width of 42 feet; and stormwater control features. In addition, Oregon 99W would remain the designated bicycle route through the Newberg and Dundee area. If the Bypass is constructed, existing Oregon 99W is anticipated to become Oregon 99W (Business). Total construction costs are estimated at $753 to $880 million with an estimated construction start date of 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Bypass would reduce congestion on Oregon 99W through Newberg and Dundee by redirecting traffic traveling through these communities to the Bypass. Newberg and Dundee would have less congestion and noise along Oregon 99W, allowing both cities to make their downtowns more pedestrian friendly and more enjoyable places to spend time, along with safer and faster travel for through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way for the Build Alternative would require acquisition of 446 to 461 total acres and relocation of 95 to 103 residences and 26 businesses. Construction would impact 5.3 acres of wetlands and 77 to 80 acres of wildlife habitat and result in noise impacts to 237 to 311 residences and significant adverse visual impacts. 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 Tier 1 draft and final EISs, see 03-0090D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 05-0646F, Volume 29, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100206, 946 pages and maps, May 28, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/754907814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NEWBERG+DUNDEE+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+YAMHILL+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salem, Oregon; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Corps of Engineers helps provide reliable power to Iraq AN - 336736341 JF - U.S. Department of Defense Information / FIND AU - Michael Scheck, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2010/05/26/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 26 CY - Lanham PB - Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. KW - Military UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/336736341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Military+Database&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Michael+Scheck%2C+U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.aulast=Michael+Scheck&rft.aufirst=U.S.+Army+Corps+of&rft.date=2010-05-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Corps+of+Engineers+helps+provide+reliable+power+to+Iraq&rft.title=Corps+of+Engineers+helps+provide+reliable+power+to+Iraq&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central N1 - Copyright - Copyright (c) 2010 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827469; 14352-100201_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827328; 14352-100201_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827323; 14352-100201_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827321; 14352-100201_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827319; 14352-100201_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827312; 14352-100201_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827304; 14352-100201_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827134; 14352-100201_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 756827126; 14352-100201_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/756827126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL RICHMOND-RALEIGH PROJECT, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA. AN - 15233856; 14352 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental development, implementation, and operation of high speed rail passenger service in the 450-mile travel corridor from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, and Raleigh, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina are proposed. Corridor development for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project began in the early 1990s and a tiered approach was adopted for the environmental analysis because of the length of the corridor. The original SEHSR Tier I EIS (2002) covered the entire Washington, D.C. to Charlotte corridor at a program level, establishing the overall project purpose and need, along with the preferred corridor. This Tier II EIS includes detailed environmental analysis appropriate to the proposed actions planned within the 162-mile preferred corridor between Richmond and Raleigh. The project corridor is divided into 26 sections and three alternatives in each section are evaluated. Each rail alternative includes an associated set of highway improvements. The maximum authorized speed (MAS) for trains would be 110 miles per hour (mph) using fossil fueled locomotion. In those areas where it is not possible to fully straighten curves to sustain these speeds, the desired minimum curve speed would be 80 mph. The proposed rail improvements fall into three general categories within the overall project corridor: Richmond to Centralia, Virginia (approximately 11 miles) would be double track, mixed use (freight and passenger) initially at conventional speeds (79 mph); Centralia to Collier, Virginia (approximately 18 miles) would involve new track, 30 feet to the east of the existing main line track at MAS 90 mph; Collier to Raleigh, North Carolina (approximately 133 miles) would be new single track, with 5 mile long sidings every 10 miles and MAS of 110 mph. For safety and long term operability, the rail design for the project is fully grade separated, which means that all roads crossing the railroad would have either a bridge or underpass. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would divert trips from air and highway within the travel corridor, provide a more balanced use of the corridors transportation infrastructure, increase the safety and effectiveness of the transportation system, reduce emissions per passenger mile traveled, and serve both long-distance business and leisure travelers between and beyond Virginia and North Carolina. Total economic and fiscal impact would be $15.3 billion in 2008 dollars. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project corridor would impact from 36,079 feet up to 49,455 feet of streams and from 23.7 acres up to 36.8 acres of wetlands. All build alternatives would cross four designated Virginia Scenic Rivers (James River, Nottoway River, Appomattox River, and Meherrin River) and the Tar River in North Carolina via bridge spans. Twenty-four historic resources within the SEHSR corridor that are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected by one or more of the project alternatives. In addition to underground storage tanks, dry cleaner sites, hazardous waste disposal sites, and similar hazardous sites, there is one Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility site, and one polychlorinated biphenyl site within the project area that would be impacted by all three project alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Tier I draft and final EISs, see 02-0060D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 02-0440F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100201, Draft EIS--653 pages, Appendices--567 pages, Map Book--153 maps, May 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Project Authorization 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/15233856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=SOUTHEAST+HIGH+SPEED+RAIL+RICHMOND-RALEIGH+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Distribution of RDX and TNT from Composition-B Explosive in Rainfall Runoff T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754296943; 5825512 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Price, Richard AU - Bourne, M AU - Lindsay, J AU - Cole, J Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Rainfall KW - Explosives KW - Runoff KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754296943?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Distribution+of+RDX+and+TNT+from+Composition-B+Explosive+in+Rainfall+Runoff&rft.au=Price%2C+Richard%3BBourne%2C+M%3BLindsay%2C+J%3BCole%2C+J&rft.aulast=Price&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Effects of Prescribed Burns on Reducing Composition-B Residues in Military Training Areas T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754283504; 5825575 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Price, Richard AU - Bourne, M AU - Lindsay, J AU - Cole, J Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Residues KW - Burns KW - Training KW - Military KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754283504?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Effects+of+Prescribed+Burns+on+Reducing+Composition-B+Residues+in+Military+Training+Areas&rft.au=Price%2C+Richard%3BBourne%2C+M%3BLindsay%2C+J%3BCole%2C+J&rft.aulast=Price&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Technology Evaluation and Selection for Removing RDX from a Production Wastewater Stream T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754283132; 5825507 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Gent, David AU - Johnson, J AU - Felts, D AU - Larson, S AU - O'Connor, G AU - Winstead, B Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Technology KW - Streams KW - Waste water KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754283132?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Technology+Evaluation+and+Selection+for+Removing+RDX+from+a+Production+Wastewater+Stream&rft.au=Gent%2C+David%3BJohnson%2C+J%3BFelts%2C+D%3BLarson%2C+S%3BO%27Connor%2C+G%3BWinstead%2C+B&rft.aulast=Gent&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - In-Well Tests to Determine Indig- enous Naphthalene Biodegradation under Sulfate-Reducing and Methanogenic Conditions T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754270896; 5825317 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Dona, C AU - Georgian, T AU - Coyle, C AU - Peacock, A AU - Davis, G AU - Barker, J AU - Sublette, K AU - Wilson, J AU - Bowlin, P Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Naphthalene KW - Biodegradation KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754270896?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=In-Well+Tests+to+Determine+Indig-+enous+Naphthalene+Biodegradation+under+Sulfate-Reducing+and+Methanogenic+Conditions&rft.au=Dona%2C+C%3BGeorgian%2C+T%3BCoyle%2C+C%3BPeacock%2C+A%3BDavis%2C+G%3BBarker%2C+J%3BSublette%2C+K%3BWilson%2C+J%3BBowlin%2C+P&rft.aulast=Dona&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Capping of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754269857; 5825489 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Knowles, Stephen Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Bioremediation KW - Historical account KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754269857?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Capping+of+the+Historic+Area+Remediation+Site+%28HARS%29&rft.au=Knowles%2C+Stephen&rft.aulast=Knowles&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Comparative In Situ Pilot Study of Lactate and Calcium Polysulfide for Geochemical Fixation of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754264137; 5826134 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Murt, Victoria AU - Yun, K AU - Tsang, F AU - Olsen, R AU - Cutt, D Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Geochemistry KW - Ground water KW - Calcium KW - Chromium KW - Lactic acid KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754264137?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=A+Comparative+In+Situ+Pilot+Study+of+Lactate+and+Calcium+Polysulfide+for+Geochemical+Fixation+of+Hexavalent+Chromium+in+Groundwater&rft.au=Murt%2C+Victoria%3BYun%2C+K%3BTsang%2C+F%3BOlsen%2C+R%3BCutt%2C+D&rft.aulast=Murt&rft.aufirst=Victoria&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Sustainability Incorporation into Remedial System Evaluations: Comparison of the Use of Two Tools T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754261925; 5825634 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Dona, Carol AU - Coyle, C AU - Becker, D AU - Bailey, M Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Sustainability KW - Remediation KW - Resource management KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754261925?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Sustainability+Incorporation+into+Remedial+System+Evaluations%3A+Comparison+of+the+Use+of+Two+Tools&rft.au=Dona%2C+Carol%3BCoyle%2C+C%3BBecker%2C+D%3BBailey%2C+M&rft.aulast=Dona&rft.aufirst=Carol&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Green and Sustainable Practices at Army Environmental Remediation Sites T2 - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AN - 754245356; 5825709 JF - Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds AU - Dona, Carol Y1 - 2010/05/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 24 KW - Bioremediation KW - Sustainable development KW - Environment management KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754245356?accountid=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=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.atitle=Green+and+Sustainable+Practices+at+Army+Environmental+Remediation+Sites&rft.au=Dona%2C+Carol&rft.aulast=Dona&rft.aufirst=Carol&rft.date=2010-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seventh+International+Conference+on+Remediation+of+Chlorinated+and+Recalcitrant+Compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.battelle.org/conferences/chlorinated/pdf/finalprogram.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) as a Mechanism of Dissemination and Persistence of RDX-degrading Activity at Contaminated Sites T2 - 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology AN - 839641983; 5895818 JF - 110th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology AU - Jung, C AU - Indest, K AU - Crocker, F AU - Eberly, J AU - Carbone, R Y1 - 2010/05/23/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 23 KW - {Q1} KW - Gene transfer KW - Pollutant persistence KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839641983?accountid=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=110th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology&rft.atitle=Horizontal+Gene+Transfer+%28HGT%29+as+a+Mechanism+of+Dissemination+and+Persistence+of+RDX-degrading+Activity+at+Contaminated+Sites&rft.au=Jung%2C+C%3BIndest%2C+K%3BCrocker%2C+F%3BEberly%2C+J%3BCarbone%2C+R&rft.aulast=Jung&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=110th+General+Meeting+of+the+American+Society+for+Microbiology&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gm.asm.org/images/stories/final_gm_final_program-v2.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Assessing the impact of soot generated by metallofullerene synthesis on terrestrial invertebrates T2 - 20th Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2010) AN - 754310285; 5857240 JF - 20th Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2010) AU - Coleman, G AU - Johnson AU - Banks, C J AU - Boyd, R E AU - Brasfield, S M AU - Steevens, JA Y1 - 2010/05/23/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 23 KW - Invertebrates KW - Soot KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754310285?accountid=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=20th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2010%29&rft.atitle=Assessing+the+impact+of+soot+generated+by+metallofullerene+synthesis+on+terrestrial+invertebrates&rft.au=Coleman%2C+G%3BJohnson%3BBanks%2C+C+J%3BBoyd%2C+R+E%3BBrasfield%2C+S+M%3BSteevens%2C+JA&rft.aulast=Coleman&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2010-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=20th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/publicSciProgram.do?congressId LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Combining computational and toxicological approaches to assessing environmental risk of 2,4 dinitroanisole T2 - 20th Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2010) AN - 754307334; 5857411 JF - 20th Annual Meeting of the Europe branch of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC 2010) AU - Brasfield, Sandra AU - Coleman, Jessica AU - Ang, Choo AU - Hill, Frances AU - Gryn'ova, Ganna AU - Petrova, Tetyana Y1 - 2010/05/23/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 23 KW - Computer applications KW - Environmental assessment KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754307334?accountid=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=20th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2010%29&rft.atitle=Combining+computational+and+toxicological+approaches+to+assessing+environmental+risk+of+2%2C4+dinitroanisole&rft.au=Brasfield%2C+Sandra%3BColeman%2C+Jessica%3BAng%2C+Choo%3BHill%2C+Frances%3BGryn%27ova%2C+Ganna%3BPetrova%2C+Tetyana&rft.aulast=Brasfield&rft.aufirst=Sandra&rft.date=2010-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=20th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Europe+branch+of+the+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/publicSciProgram.do?congressId LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873132052; 14337-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130693; 14337-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130677; 14337-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130583; 14337-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130570; 14337-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130560; 14337-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130549; 14337-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130542; 14337-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130489; 14337-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130475; 14337-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130290; 14337-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130264; 14337-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130216; 14337-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128859; 14337-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128849; 14337-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128693; 14337-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128678; 14337-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128665; 14337-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128653; 14337-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128644; 14337-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128635; 14337-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128617; 14337-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128605; 14337-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128591; 14337-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127851; 14337-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127841; 14337-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127691; 14337-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127690; 14337-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 30] T2 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127685; 14337-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAY HARBOR AND PIERCE COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 754908269; 14337 AB - PURPOSE: A new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington and potential use of an existing facility in Tacoma, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is a collection of roadway improvements designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. A new facility for pontoon construction in Grays Harbor would be built and a smaller, existing facility owned by Concrete Technology Corporation, Inc. (CTC) in Tacoma could be used to begin pontoon construction while the new facility is being built. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. This draft EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both Grays Harbor build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. Pontoons built at the Tacoma CTC facility would be stored at existing marine berths in Puget Sound for up to four years if there were no bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge if the bridge were ever damaged beyond repair from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would affect one acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.4 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of 5 acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100186, Executive Summary--27 pages, Draft EIS--345 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+520+BRIDGE+REPLACMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAY+HARBOR+AND+PIERCE+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST SACRAMENTO LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, YOLO AND SOLANO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 15235143; 14336 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to current standards of the levees that protect the city of West Sacramento, Yolo and Solano counties, California is proposed. The city of West Sacramento is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and lies within the natural floodplain of the Sacramento River. The West Sacramento Levee Improvements Program (WSLIP) study area includes the city and the lands within the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency's (WSAFCA) boundaries, which encompass portions of the Sacramento River, the Yolo Bypass, the Sacramento Bypass, and the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC). The bypasses divert flood flows around the city to the west while the DWSC provides a navigable passageway for commercial shipping to reach the Port of West Sacramento. Flood control structures have been extensively improved, but the underlying foundation of most of the 50-mile system of levees still retains the original materials that include dredged riverbed sands, soil, and organic matter. Failure mechanisms and deficiencies have been identified for each of the nine reaches in the study area. To implement the proposed improvements, the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) is requesting permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the alteration of the federal flood control project, for the placement of fill or dredged material into jurisdictional waters of the United States, and for authority where work is performed in, under, or over navigable waters. Proposed improvements would include raising levee height, seepage control, slope flattening and stability berms, erosion control with rock slope protection, setback levees, and vegetation removal. Alternatives have been developed on a reach-by-reach basis and this draft EIS provides program-level analysis for the WSLIP to support project-level analysis and decision-making for early implementation projects (EIPs). Two EIPs are analyzed to address critical areas where the levee deficiency is well-defined and evidence of seepage has been observed. The EIPs would implement improvements at sites on the Sacramento Bypass and Sacramento River North levee reaches, referred to as the CHP Academy EIP and The Rivers EIP, respectively. The preferred alternative for levee treatments at the CHP Academy site includes a slurry cutoff wall, waterside slope flattening, and a paved bike trail. The preferred alternative for levee treatments at The Rivers site includes a deep soil mixing cutoff wall, landside slope flattening, a paved bike trail, a paved pedestrian trail. a paved landing, and landside levee embankment ramps. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would provide a comprehensive evaluation of the levee system, develop strategies for improvement, and provide a basis for partnerships with federal and state agencies to implement improvements to meet flood protection and compatible recreation and open space goals. Improving the 50 miles of levees would help to achieve a minimum 200-year flood protection for the entire city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related effects would include safety, noise, traffic, and air quality. Removal of woody vegetation would impact fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. Species that would be impacted include western pond turtle, giant garter snake, bats, Swainson's hawk, and western burrowing owl. Potential conflicts with private property underlying or near proposed improvements could result in temporary or permanent take or temporary restrictions on access. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100185, Draft EIS--1,212 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 408 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15235143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+SACRAMENTO+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+YOLO+AND+SOLANO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WEST+SACRAMENTO+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+YOLO+AND+SOLANO+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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Ontonagon River: A History of Sediment Yields in a Geologically Young Watershed T2 - 53rd Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research (IAGLR 2010) AN - 754220848; 5786140 JF - 53rd Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research (IAGLR 2010) AU - Creech, C AU - Mckeever, A AU - Selegean, J AU - Dahl, T Y1 - 2010/05/17/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 17 KW - Historical account KW - Watersheds KW - Sediment pollution KW - Rivers KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754220848?accountid=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=53rd+Annual+Conference+on+Great+Lakes+Research+%28IAGLR+2010%29&rft.atitle=The+Ontonagon+River%3A+A+History+of+Sediment+Yields+in+a+Geologically+Young+Watershed&rft.au=Creech%2C+C%3BMckeever%2C+A%3BSelegean%2C+J%3BDahl%2C+T&rft.aulast=Creech&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-05-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=53rd+Annual+Conference+on+Great+Lakes+Research+%28IAGLR+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.iaglr.org/conference/program.php LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Reconnaissance Report T2 - 34th t Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM 2010) AN - 754248422; 5796050 JF - 34th t Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM 2010) AU - Yeager, John Y1 - 2010/05/16/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 16 KW - USA, Kentucky, Ohio R. basin KW - River basins KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754248422?accountid=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=34th+t+Annual+Conference+of+the+Association+of+State+Floodplain+Managers+%28ASFPM+2010%29&rft.atitle=Ohio+River+Basin+Comprehensive+Reconnaissance+Report&rft.au=Yeager%2C+John&rft.aulast=Yeager&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-05-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=34th+t+Annual+Conference+of+the+Association+of+State+Floodplain+Managers+%28ASFPM+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.floods.org/ace-files/Conferences/OKC/ASFPM_2010_Conference_ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827471; 14331-100180_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827468; 14331-100180_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827466; 14331-100180_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827463; 14331-100180_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827460; 14329-100178_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827456; 14333-100182_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827368; 14334-100183_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827361; 14334-100183_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827352; 14331-100180_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827348; 14331-100180_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827340; 14331-100180_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827337; 14333-100182_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827320; 14334-100183_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827308; 14331-100180_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827303; 14329-100178_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827302; 14331-100180_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827292; 14333-100182_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827282; 14333-100182_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827281; 14334-100183_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827271; 14333-100182_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827262; 14329-100178_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827232; 14334-100183_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827218; 14333-100182_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827206; 14331-100180_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827191; 14329-100178_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 756827092; 14331-100180_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 754908332; 14333 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from the natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would add a 3,000-cubic foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to 6 control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost for the TSP is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the TSP would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100182, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--567 pages, Appendices--872 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MEDIUM DIVERSION AT WHITE DITCH, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 754908318; 14329 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a medium-sized freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into the area between the Mississippi River and the River aux Chenes at White Ditch, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Medium Diversion at White Ditch study area is located near Phoenix, Louisiana which is 23 miles south-southeast of New Orleans along the Mississippi River and includes the Breton Sound area. There are over 98,000 acres of intermediate to brackish intertidal wetland habitats in the study area. Subsidence, erosion, channelization, saltwater intrusion, storm damage and the absence of fresh water, sediments and nutrients from the Mississippi River have all caused significant adverse impacts to the White Ditch project area resulting in extensive wetland loss and ecosystem degradation. There is an existing siphon at the mouth of White Ditch that was built in 1963 and has not been in operation since 1991, except for two brief episodes. Hydrologic flow in the area was originally down the River aux Chenes (Oak River), small bayous, and as sheet flow across the marsh towards the Gulf of Mexico. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 4, which is the tentatively selected plan (TSP), a 35,000-cubic foot per second (cfs) diversion would consist of ten 15-foot by 15-foot box culverts with hydraulic operated sluice gates that would be placed in the Mississippi River levee. An outflow channel about 7,200 feet long, 545 feet wide and 16 feet deep would be dredged to carry the flow. In addition about 8,600 feet of Bayou Garelle would be deepened to allow passage of the diverted waters. All material removed from these channels would be used beneficially. Some would be placed immediately adjacent to the outfall canal and Bayou Garelle to guide the water and to create 31 acres of ridge habitat. The rest would be placed in open water and marsh adjacent to the channels to nourish or create 385 acres of marsh. The marsh nourishment/creation areas would be surrounded by containment berms built with material from within the areas. Rip-rap would be placed along the outfall channel in key places for stabilization. Rip-rap plugs would be placed in six major canals leading to River aux Chenes to prevent diverted sediment from leaving the project area. The material that is removed would be placed adjacent to the channel to nourish or create marsh. The total estimated cost of the TSP is $387.6 million. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would involve construction of structures capable of diverting 5,000 cfs, 10,000 cfs, and 15,000 cfs, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide a source of river sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to the River aux Chenes sub-basin and other nearby portions of the upper Breton Sound Basin, and would help to restore and protect marsh soils and vegetation and maintain a functional salinity regime. The diversion of fresh water, sediments and nutrients would nourish 41,206 acres of wetlands and have a net value of 13,355 average annual habitat units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the TSP, construction of the diversion would impact 277 acres of intermediate marsh, 363 acres of shallow open water, and five acres of bottomland hardwoods. Channel excavation would impact 233 acres of intermediate marsh and shallow open water. The conveyance channel and the marsh creation/restoration features would affect 11 of the 13 landowners within the right-of-way needs for the project. Construction of the project would also require the temporary relocation of State Highway 39 and a powerline adjacent to the highway. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100178, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--374 pages, Appendices--600 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MEDIUM+DIVERSION+AT+WHITE+DITCH%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+PLAQUEMINES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 15235893; 14334 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 33 is the tentatively selected plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $7.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the TSP would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and palcement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100183, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--424 pages, Appendices--647 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15235893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 15234693; 14331 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is also the tentatively selected plan (TSP), would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of degradation of the Terrebonne Marshes, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. Specifically, the provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland (levee). LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100180, LCA Summary Document--362 pages, EIS--509 pages, Appendices--911 pages, May 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15234693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 39 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130844; 14332-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 38 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130836; 14332-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 37 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130820; 14332-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 30 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130810; 14332-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 29 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130798; 14332-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 28 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130787; 14332-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 27 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130776; 14332-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 26 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130763; 14332-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130748; 14332-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130737; 14332-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 36 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130735; 14332-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130725; 14332-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 33 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130699; 14332-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 32 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130681; 14332-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130674; 14332-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 31 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130663; 14332-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 11 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130622; 14332-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 10 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130602; 14332-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130557; 14332-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 19 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130395; 14332-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 18 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130381; 14332-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 16 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130338; 14332-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 15 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130323; 14332-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 14 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873130311; 14332-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128724; 14332-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128705; 14332-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 24 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128633; 14332-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 22 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128602; 14332-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 21 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128584; 14332-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 20 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873128557; 14332-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 40] T2 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127170; 14332-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Investigation of the Dynamic Performance of Large Reinforcement Bar Mechanical Couplers T2 - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AN - 754225265; 5775141 JF - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AU - Rowell, Stephen AU - Hager, Kevin Y1 - 2010/05/12/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 12 KW - Reinforcement KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754225265?accountid=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+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.atitle=Investigation+of+the+Dynamic+Performance+of+Large+Reinforcement+Bar+Mechanical+Couplers&rft.au=Rowell%2C+Stephen%3BHager%2C+Kevin&rft.aulast=Rowell&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://submissions.miracd.com/ASCE/Structures2010/Itinerary/Conference LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - DHS Blast/Projectile Protection Project T2 - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AN - 754211851; 5775145 JF - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AU - Woodson, Stanley AU - Fortune, John Y1 - 2010/05/12/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 12 KW - Blast KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754211851?accountid=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+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.atitle=DHS+Blast%2FProjectile+Protection+Project&rft.au=Woodson%2C+Stanley%3BFortune%2C+John&rft.aulast=Woodson&rft.aufirst=Stanley&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://submissions.miracd.com/ASCE/Structures2010/Itinerary/Conference LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Bridge Vulnerability and Blast Mitigation Research T2 - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AN - 754203797; 5775143 JF - 2010 Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC 2010) AU - Chiarito, Vincent AU - Ray, James Y1 - 2010/05/12/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 May 12 KW - Vulnerability KW - Mitigation KW - Blast KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754203797?accountid=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+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.atitle=Bridge+Vulnerability+and+Blast+Mitigation+Research&rft.au=Chiarito%2C+Vincent%3BRay%2C+James&rft.aulast=Chiarito&rft.aufirst=Vincent&rft.date=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Structures+Congress%2FNorth+American+Steel+Construction+Conference+%28NASCC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://submissions.miracd.com/ASCE/Structures2010/Itinerary/Conference LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEMPER COUNTY INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED-CYCLE (IGCC) PROJECT, KEMPER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 15236382; 14332 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for construction and operation of an advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi is proposed. The project was selected under the Department of Energy's clean coal power initiative to demonstrate integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) technology and $270 million of an original $294 million in cost-shared financial assistance is pending. Mississippi Power Company would convert Mississippi lignite mined by North American Coal Corporation (NACC) into a synthesis gas (syngas), which would fuel the plant's combustion turbine generating units and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine. Combined, the three turbines would generate a nominal 582 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Although Department of Energy funding would support only the IGCC power plant, the project would include new electrical power transmission lines and upgrades of some existing transmission lines, a surface lignite mine, a natural gas supply pipeline, a reclaimed water supply pipeline, and a carbon dioxide pipeline. NACC's proposed mine would be located on adjacent properties and would supply lignite to the power plant over its planned 40-year life. Construction of the proposed plant would begin in 2010, continue for 3.5 years, and end in spring 2014. During construction, an average of 500 workers would be on the site, with approximately 1,150 workers required during peak construction in the first half of 2012. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and project-specific alternatives including possible water supply sources, routes of linear facilities (transmission lines and pipelines), and alternative levels of carbon dioxide capture. Mine proposal alternatives include: potential alternative mine locations; avoiding disturbance of Okatibbee Creek; mining methods, including overburden removal, lignite removal, lignite loading, and lignite transport; and reclamation methods in terms of topsoil removal and replacement. Additional mine-related alternatives include avoidance and minimization of mining and mine support facilities in floodplains and wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed power plant would demonstrate an advanced IGCC power generation system at a commercial scale while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and particulates compared to conventional lignite-fired power plants. The project would include carbon capture systems sufficient to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 67 percent by removing carbon from the syngas downstream of the gasification process and the captured carbon dioxide would be sold for beneficial use and geologic storage in existing enhanced oil recovery operations in Mississippi. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soils on up to 12,275 acres would be disturbed or removed over the life of the project and approximately 133 acres of wetlands and streams would be lost or altered by construction activities. Up to 32 miles of perennial stream channels and 24 miles of intermittent stream channels would be temporarily removed by construction and lignite extraction. Mine pit water control activities would cause drawdown in the shallow Middle Wilcox aquifer and could adversely impact some local wells. Fugitive dust, engine emissions, and other emissions would impact air quality. Projected emissions from the power plant would include 590 tons per year (tpy) of sulphur dioxide, 1,900 tpy of oxides of nitrogen, 470 tpy of particulate matter, 980 tpy of carbon monoxide, and lesser amounts of other pollutants. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 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 09-0364D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100181, Volume 1--643 pages, Volume 2: Appendices--686 pages, Volume 3: Responses to Comments--377 pages, May 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0409 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal Gasification KW - Creeks KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=KEMPER+COUNTY+INTEGRATED+GASIFICATION+COMBINED-CYCLE+%28IGCC%29+PROJECT%2C+KEMPER+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128499; 14320-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Alternative 4, which would use cellular open excavation and overlay for excavation and replacement of the MIAD foundation is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0476D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 07-0156D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100169, 227 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). AN - 756827418; 14322-100171_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire is proposed. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Due to population growth and development, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in the final EIS of April, 2004 include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The selected alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Current cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $794.4 million in future year of construction dollars. A District of New Hampshire court decision on August 30, 2007 held that traffic projections in the 2004 final EIS relied on an outdated population growth forecast. The court directed preparation of this supplemental EIS, which considers the effects of induced population and employment growth estimates on the effectiveness of the selected alternative in reducing traffic congestion, traffic on secondary roads, and air quality. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alternative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 19 residences and 23 business structures. Nine acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine, would be impacted. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at many of the 21 stream crossings. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards, but sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0315D, Volume 33, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 04-0454F, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100171, 645 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Population KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). AN - 756827246; 14322-100171_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire is proposed. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Due to population growth and development, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in the final EIS of April, 2004 include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The selected alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Current cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $794.4 million in future year of construction dollars. A District of New Hampshire court decision on August 30, 2007 held that traffic projections in the 2004 final EIS relied on an outdated population growth forecast. The court directed preparation of this supplemental EIS, which considers the effects of induced population and employment growth estimates on the effectiveness of the selected alternative in reducing traffic congestion, traffic on secondary roads, and air quality. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alternative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 19 residences and 23 business structures. Nine acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine, would be impacted. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at many of the 21 stream crossings. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards, but sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0315D, Volume 33, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 04-0454F, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100171, 645 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Population KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). AN - 756827110; 14322-100171_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire is proposed. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Due to population growth and development, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in the final EIS of April, 2004 include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The selected alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Current cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $794.4 million in future year of construction dollars. A District of New Hampshire court decision on August 30, 2007 held that traffic projections in the 2004 final EIS relied on an outdated population growth forecast. The court directed preparation of this supplemental EIS, which considers the effects of induced population and employment growth estimates on the effectiveness of the selected alternative in reducing traffic congestion, traffic on secondary roads, and air quality. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alternative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 19 residences and 23 business structures. Nine acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine, would be impacted. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at many of the 21 stream crossings. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards, but sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0315D, Volume 33, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 04-0454F, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100171, 645 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Population KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16385158; 14320 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Alternative 4, which would use cellular open excavation and overlay for excavation and replacement of the MIAD foundation is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0476D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 07-0156D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100169, 227 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL, 2004). AN - 16372282; 14322 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire is proposed. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Due to population growth and development, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in the final EIS of April, 2004 include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The selected alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Current cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $794.4 million in future year of construction dollars. A District of New Hampshire court decision on August 30, 2007 held that traffic projections in the 2004 final EIS relied on an outdated population growth forecast. The court directed preparation of this supplemental EIS, which considers the effects of induced population and employment growth estimates on the effectiveness of the selected alternative in reducing traffic congestion, traffic on secondary roads, and air quality. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alternative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 19 residences and 23 business structures. Nine acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine, would be impacted. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at many of the 21 stream crossings. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards, but sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0315D, Volume 33, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1 and 04-0454F, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100171, 645 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Population KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/16372282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+ROCKINGHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL%2C+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Simulation-Optimization Framework to Support Sustainable Watershed Development by Mimicking the Predevelopment Flow Regime AN - 856756438; 13806033 AB - The modification of land and water resources for human use alters the natural hydrologic flow regime of a downstream receiving body of water. The natural flow regime is essential for sustaining biotic structure and equilibrium within the ecosystem. Best management practices mitigate the increased storm water runoff due to increased imperviousness and are typically designed and located within a watershed to match peak and minimum flows for a small set of targeted design storms. Ecosystems are, however, affected by all the characteristics of a long-term flow regime, including the magnitude, duration, frequency, and timing of flows. A more environmentally sustainable approach for watershed development is presented based on the minimization of differences in the characteristics of the flow regime between predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions. The indicator of hydrologic alteration (IHA) is a set of 33 hydrologic indices that characterize a flow regime and, coupled with the range of variability approach (RVA), can be used to evaluate a development strategy for its alteration of the long-term hydrologic flow regime. This paper presents a methodology to identify watershed management strategies that will have a minimal impact on the flow regime and downstream ecosystems. This methodology utilizes a metric that evaluates development strategies based on an IHA/RVA analysis implemented within a simulation-optimization framework. Continuous simulation of urban runoff for different land use strategies is enabled through the use of the storm water management model, and the resulting long-term hydrograph is analyzed using IHA/RVA. Development is allocated within subcatchments to maintain a predefined minimum level of total development while minimizing the hydrologic alteration. A hybrid optimization approach based on genetic algorithm and Nelder-Meade approaches is used to identify optimal land use allocation. Further analysis is conducted to identify alternative development patterns that allocate impervious development maximally differently among subcatchments while achieving similarly low alteration in the hydrologic flow regime. JF - Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management AU - Reichold, Laurel AU - Zechman, Emily M AU - Brill, EDowney AU - Holmes, Hillary AD - Environmental Engineer, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL., ezechman@tamu.edu Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 366 EP - 375 SN - 0733-9496, 0733-9496 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Simulation KW - Optimization KW - Sustainable development KW - Stormwater management KW - Hydrologic models KW - Land Use KW - Hydrological Regime KW - Resource management KW - Storm Runoff KW - Ecosystems KW - Algorithms KW - Water resources KW - Watershed Management KW - Design storms KW - Freshwater KW - Storms KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Watershed management KW - Downstream KW - Water resources planning KW - River basin management KW - Land use KW - Ecosystem disturbance KW - Numerical simulations KW - Water management KW - Rainfall-runoff modeling KW - Environment management KW - Runoff KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/856756438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.atitle=Simulation-Optimization+Framework+to+Support+Sustainable+Watershed+Development+by+Mimicking+the+Predevelopment+Flow+Regime&rft.au=Reichold%2C+Laurel%3BZechman%2C+Emily+M%3BBrill%2C+EDowney%3BHolmes%2C+Hillary&rft.aulast=Reichold&rft.aufirst=Laurel&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=366&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.issn=07339496&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29WR.1943-5452.0000040 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Water management; Water resources; Watersheds; River basin management; Environment management; Runoff; Ecosystem disturbance; Land use; Numerical simulations; Algorithms; Rainfall-runoff modeling; Watershed management; Design storms; Water resources planning; Storms; Land Use; Hydrological Regime; Hydrologic Models; Ecosystems; Storm Runoff; Downstream; Watershed Management; Optimization; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000040 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Building Damage due to Riverine and Coastal Floods AN - 856756367; 13806037 AB - Floods in both riverine and coastal zones can cause significant damage to infrastructure, including possible structural failure of buildings. Methodologies commonly used to estimate flood damage to buildings are typically based on aftermath surveys and statistical analyses of insurance claims data. These methodologies rarely account for flooding hydrodynamics, and thus do not differentiate between the damage caused by floodwater contact and those caused by floodwater velocity. A new stochastic methodology has been developed to estimate the direct impact of flood actions on buildings and to determine the expected damage. Building vulnerability is modeled based on analytical representations of the failure mechanisms of individual building components. The flood actions generated during different flooding events are assessed and compared to the resistance of each building component. The assessed flood actions include: hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, waves, turbulent bores, debris impacts, and time-dependent local soil scour. Monte Carlo simulation was used to synthetically expand the available building data, to perform load-resistance analysis, and to account for the uncertainty of input parameters. The primary result from this study is the expected flood damage to individual buildings, and it is expressed as a three-dimensional functions dependent on both floodwater depth and floodwater velocity. The results show how floodwater velocity can increase the magnitude of the flood damage outcome compared to those that solely consider water depth. This demonstrates the real need for considering floodwater hydrodynamics in the vulnerability assessment of buildings located in flood prone areas. Although the present study focuses on the vulnerability of reinforced concrete frame buildings with infill concrete-block walls, the methodology can also be applied to other types of structures. This methodology could serve as a decision-making tool to assist engineers and emergency management agencies to identify zones of high risk, and to implement the necessary preventive measures and mitigation strategies to minimize the adverse impact of potential flooding events. JF - Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management AU - Nadal, Norberto C AU - Zapata, Raul E AU - Pagan, Ismael AU - Lopez, Ricardo AU - Agudelo, Jairo AD - Research Hydraulic Engineer, USACE-ERDC Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, Norberto.C.Nadal@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 327 EP - 336 SN - 0733-9496, 0733-9496 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Coastal structures KW - Damage KW - Floods KW - Storm surges KW - Tsunamis KW - Scour KW - Wave forces KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Building damage KW - Failures KW - Statistical analysis KW - Monte Carlo method KW - Freshwater KW - Vulnerability KW - Floodwater KW - Water resources planning KW - Flood damage KW - Wave scouring KW - River discharge KW - Velocity KW - Buildings KW - Flood Damage KW - Bore KW - Numerical simulations KW - Flooding KW - Emergencies KW - SW 4060:Nonstructural alternatives KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/856756367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.atitle=Building+Damage+due+to+Riverine+and+Coastal+Floods&rft.au=Nadal%2C+Norberto+C%3BZapata%2C+Raul+E%3BPagan%2C+Ismael%3BLopez%2C+Ricardo%3BAgudelo%2C+Jairo&rft.aulast=Nadal&rft.aufirst=Norberto&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=327&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.issn=07339496&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29WR.1943-5452.0000036 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Wave scouring; Wave forces; Floods; Statistical analysis; Failures; River discharge; Flooding; Emergencies; Vulnerability; Numerical simulations; Hydrodynamics; Building damage; Monte Carlo method; Water resources planning; Flood damage; Bore; Damage; Velocity; Flood Damage; Floodwater; Buildings; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000036 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Active internal deformation of the Sierra Nevada Microplate on the Kern Canyon Fault at Soda Spring, Tulare County, California AN - 818638527; 2011-006029 AB - The Kern Canyon Fault (KCF) represents a major tectonic and physiographic boundary in the southern Sierra Nevada of east-central California. Previous investigations of the KCF underscore its importance as a Late Cretaceous and Neogene shear zone in the tectonic development of the southern Sierra Nevada. Study of the late Quaternary history of activity, however, has been confounded by the remote nature of the KCF and deep along-strike exhumation within the northern Kern River drainage, driven by focused fluvial and glacial erosion. Recent acquisition of airborne LiDAR (light detection and ranging) topography along the approximately 140 km length of the KCF provides a comprehensive view of the active surface trace. High-resolution, LiDAR-derived digital elevation models (DEMs) for the northern KCF enable identification of previously unrecognized offsets of late Quaternary moraines near Soda Spring (36.345, -118.408). Predominately north-striking fault scarps developed on the Soda Spring moraines display west-side-up displacement and lack a significant sense of strike-slip separation, consistent with detailed mapping and trenching along the entire KCF. Scarp-normal topographic profiling derived from the LiDAR DEMs suggests normal displacement of at least 2.8 +0.6/-0.5 m of the Tioga terminal moraine crest. Cosmogenic (super 10) Be exposure dating of Tioga moraine boulders yields a tight age cluster centered around 18.1 + or - 0.5 ka (n = 6), indicating a minimum normal-sense fault slip-rate of approximately 0.1-0.2 mm/yr over this period. Taken together, these results provide clear documentation of late Quaternary activity on the KCF and highlight its role in accommodating extension and internal deformation of the southern Sierra Nevada Microplate. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Amos, Colin B AU - Kelson, Keith I AU - Rood, Dylan H AU - Simpson, David T AU - Rose, Ronn S AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 68 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 4 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Tulare County California KW - Sierra Nevada KW - shear zones KW - laser methods KW - erosion KW - radar methods KW - displacements KW - California KW - neotectonics KW - lidar methods KW - moraines KW - tectonics KW - Soda Spring California KW - faults KW - Kern Canyon Fault KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818638527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Active+internal+deformation+of+the+Sierra+Nevada+Microplate+on+the+Kern+Canyon+Fault+at+Soda+Spring%2C+Tulare+County%2C+California&rft.au=Amos%2C+Colin+B%3BKelson%2C+Keith+I%3BRood%2C+Dylan+H%3BSimpson%2C+David+T%3BRose%2C+Ronn+S%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Amos&rft.aufirst=Colin&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=68&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, 106th annual meeting; American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pacific Section, 85th annual meeting; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Western Region, 80th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - California; displacements; erosion; faults; Kern Canyon Fault; laser methods; lidar methods; moraines; neotectonics; radar methods; shear zones; Sierra Nevada; Soda Spring California; tectonics; Tulare County California; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The 1993-1995 surge and foreland modification, Bering Glacier, Alaska AN - 755155334; 2010-079179 AB - A 25-30 yr surge cycle anticipated by Post (1972) was confirmed by the 1993-1995 surge, although the advance culminated more than a kilometer short of the 1965-1967 surge limit. During the initial 6 mo. of the 1993-1995 surge the eastern terminus of the Bering Glacier Piedmont Lobe advanced 1.0-1.5 km at a rate that varied between 1.0-7.4 m/d, and thickened by an estimated 125-150 m. One year after the surge began an outburst of pressured subglacial water temporarily interrupted basal sliding and slowed ice front advance. Within days gravel and blocks of ice transported and deposited by that flood partially filled an ice-contact lake, forming a 1.5 km (super 2) sandur. During the next few months a second outburst nearly dissected a foreland island with the resulting construction of two additional sandar, each nearly 1 km (super 2) . Both outburst sites coincided with a subglacial conduit system that has persisted for decades and survived two surges. When the surge resumed, advance was intermittent and slower. A prominent push moraine marks the limit of ice advance on the eastern sector. Although basal sliding across a saturated substrate was a major contributor to surge-related changes along the eastern sector, the most profound foreland alteration was the result of outburst-related erosion, deposition, and drainage modification associated with outburst floods. The dominant modification of overridden terrain was subglacial hydraulic scouring of sub-kilometer scale basins, 15-20 m deep, and outburst-related proglacial sandur development. Only after a decade of retreat was it possible to assess the limited direct effects of overriding ice, which were confined to deposition of a sub-meter-thick deformation till, decameter-scale flutes, and drumlinized topography accompanied by truncation of subglacial strata. JF - Special Paper - Geological Society of America AU - Fleisher, P Jay AU - Bailey, Palmer K AU - Natel, Eric M AU - Muller, Ernie H AU - Cadwell, Don H AU - Russell, Andrew A2 - Schuchman, Rober A. A2 - Josberger, Edward G. Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 193 EP - 216 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 462 SN - 0072-1077, 0072-1077 KW - United States KW - lake-level changes KW - erosion KW - lakes KW - temperature KW - melting KW - jokulhlaups KW - sediments KW - moraines KW - glacial lakes KW - clastic sediments KW - landform evolution KW - drainage KW - cyclic processes KW - glaciers KW - rates KW - glacial features KW - till KW - glacier surges KW - Southern Alaska KW - ice movement KW - deposition KW - Bering Glacier KW - turbidity KW - Alaska KW - glacial geology KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755155334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Special+Paper+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=The+1993-1995+surge+and+foreland+modification%2C+Bering+Glacier%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Fleisher%2C+P+Jay%3BBailey%2C+Palmer+K%3BNatel%2C+Eric+M%3BMuller%2C+Ernie+H%3BCadwell%2C+Don+H%3BRussell%2C+Andrew&rft.aulast=Fleisher&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=462&rft.issue=&rft.spage=193&rft.isbn=9780813724621&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Special+Paper+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00721077&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 89 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GSAPAZ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Bering Glacier; clastic sediments; cyclic processes; deposition; drainage; erosion; glacial features; glacial geology; glacial lakes; glacier surges; glaciers; ice movement; jokulhlaups; lake-level changes; lakes; landform evolution; melting; moraines; rates; sediments; Southern Alaska; temperature; till; turbidity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bioaccumulation of TNT and DDT in Sheepshead Minnows, Cyprinodon variegatus L., Following Feeding of Contaminated Invertebrates AN - 745938462; 12942636 AB - The aim of this study was to determine the potential for dietary uptake by trophic transfer using the explosive 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and the substantially more hydrophobic dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) utilizing the amphipods Leptocheirus plumulosus as prey and the fish Cyprinodon variegatus as predator. Bioaccumulation did not change significantly over time for TNT but apparent steady-state was not reached for DDT at exposure termination after 7days of dietary exposure. The bioaccumulation factor was 0.09mg/mg for TNT and 0.34mg/mg for DDT, confirming the low potential of TNT to bioaccumulate in fish. JF - Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology AU - Lotufo, G R AU - Blackburn, WM AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, EP-R, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, 39180-6199, USA, guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 545 EP - 549 PB - Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Ave. New York NY 10010 USA VL - 84 IS - 5 SN - 0007-4861, 0007-4861 KW - Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Toxicology Abstracts KW - Food organisms KW - Contamination KW - Hydrophobicity KW - Freshwater fish KW - Toxicity tests KW - invertebrates KW - Insecticides KW - Exposure KW - Absorption KW - Invertebrata KW - Pollution indicators KW - Toxicology KW - Diets KW - prey KW - Leptocheirus plumulosus KW - Water Pollution Effects KW - DDT KW - Fish KW - Explosives KW - Cyprinodon variegatus KW - feeding KW - Pollution effects KW - Predators KW - Invertebrates KW - 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - Trophic structure KW - Prey KW - Feeding KW - Amphipods KW - predators KW - Bioaccumulation KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - X 24330:Agrochemicals KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/745938462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bulletin+of+Environmental+Contamination+and+Toxicology&rft.atitle=Bioaccumulation+of+TNT+and+DDT+in+Sheepshead+Minnows%2C+Cyprinodon+variegatus+L.%2C+Following+Feeding+of+Contaminated+Invertebrates&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+G+R%3BBlackburn%2C+WM&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=545&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+Environmental+Contamination+and+Toxicology&rft.issn=00074861&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00128-010-9978-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Food organisms; Trophic structure; Bioaccumulation; DDT; Pollution effects; Freshwater fish; Pollution indicators; Toxicity tests; Toxicology; Feeding; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene; Hydrophobicity; Predators; Explosives; Prey; Diets; Insecticides; feeding; prey; Fish; 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; invertebrates; predators; Contamination; Amphipods; Exposure; Water Pollution Effects; Absorption; Invertebrates; Leptocheirus plumulosus; Invertebrata; Cyprinodon variegatus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-9978-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Achieving Ecosystem Health Using a Watershed Approach: The Watershed Resources Registry Pilot Project in Southwestern Maryland AN - 742954407; 2010-540051 AB - Federal, state, and local agencies are piloting a new joint effort in Maryland to improve watershed planning and protect important environmental resources. The Watershed Resources Registry will help regulators and planners across different agencies and programs characterize and identify potential watershed needs, as well as target suitable opportunity sites for protection and restoration of important resources. Figures. Adapted from the source document. JF - National Wetlands Newsletter AU - Bryson, Ellen AU - Spagnolo, Ralph AU - Hoffmann, Michael AU - Seib, William AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 8 EP - 11 PB - Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC VL - 32 IS - 3 SN - 0164-0712, 0164-0712 KW - Environment and environmental policy - Geography and cartography KW - Environment and environmental policy - Ecology and environmental policy KW - Environment and environmental policy - Architecture and planning KW - Ecosystems KW - Planning KW - Maryland KW - Watersheds KW - article UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742954407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=National+Wetlands+Newsletter&rft.atitle=Achieving+Ecosystem+Health+Using+a+Watershed+Approach%3A+The+Watershed+Resources+Registry+Pilot+Project+in+Southwestern+Maryland&rft.au=Bryson%2C+Ellen%3BSpagnolo%2C+Ralph%3BHoffmann%2C+Michael%3BSeib%2C+William&rft.aulast=Bryson&rft.aufirst=Ellen&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=National+Wetlands+Newsletter&rft.issn=01640712&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-07 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Watersheds; Maryland; Ecosystems; Planning ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A cross-shore model of barrier island migration over a compressible substrate AN - 742919383; 2010-055462 AB - Barrier islands that overlie a compressible substrate, such as islands in deltaic environments or those that overlay mud or peat deposits, load and consolidate the underlying subsurface. Through time, the elevation and aerial extent of these islands are reduced, making them more susceptible to future inundation and overwash. Sand washed over the island and onto back-barrier marsh or into the bay or estuary begins the consolidation process on a previously non-loaded substrate, with time-dependent consolidation as a function of the magnitude of the load, duration of load, and characteristics of the substrate. The result is an increase in the overwash, migration, breaching, and segmentation of these islands. This research developed a two-dimensional (cross-shore) numerical model for evolution of a sandy barrier island that spans durations of years to decades as a function of erosion, runup, overwash, migration, and time-dependent consolidation of the underlying substrate as a function of loading by the island. The model was tested with field data and then applied to evaluate the effects of a compressible substrate on long-term barrier island evolution. Results illustrate that barrier islands overlying a compressible substrate are more likely to have reduced dune elevation due to consolidation, incur overall volumetric adjustment of the profile to fill in compressed regions outside the immediate footprint of the island, and experience increased overwash and migration when the dune reaches a critical elevation with respect to the prevalent storm conditions. JF - Marine Geology AU - Rosati, Julie Dean AU - Dean, Robert G AU - Stone, Gregory W Y1 - 2010/05// PY - 2010 DA - May 2010 SP - 1 EP - 16 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 271 IS - 1-2 SN - 0025-3227, 0025-3227 KW - United States KW - Assawoman Island KW - geologic hazards KW - erosion KW - substrates KW - estuarine sedimentation KW - Metomkin Island KW - floods KW - storms KW - Delmarva Peninsula KW - Accomack County Virginia KW - compressibility KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - soil mechanics KW - barrier islands KW - shore features KW - Virginia KW - numerical models KW - deltaic sedimentation KW - landform evolution KW - sedimentation KW - shorelines KW - water erosion KW - two-dimensional models KW - case studies KW - ocean waves KW - Wallops Island KW - geomorphology KW - coastal sedimentation KW - consolidation KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742919383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Geology&rft.atitle=A+cross-shore+model+of+barrier+island+migration+over+a+compressible+substrate&rft.au=Rosati%2C+Julie+Dean%3BDean%2C+Robert+G%3BStone%2C+Gregory+W&rft.aulast=Rosati&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=271&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Geology&rft.issn=00253227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.margeo.2010.01.005 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00253227 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 85 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - MAGEA6 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Accomack County Virginia; Assawoman Island; Atlantic Coastal Plain; barrier islands; case studies; coastal sedimentation; compressibility; consolidation; Delmarva Peninsula; deltaic sedimentation; erosion; estuarine sedimentation; floods; geologic hazards; geomorphology; landform evolution; Metomkin Island; numerical models; ocean waves; sedimentation; shore features; shorelines; soil mechanics; storms; substrates; two-dimensional models; United States; Virginia; Wallops Island; water erosion DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2010.01.005 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION (STATE ROUTE (SR) 162) FROM SR 33 (OLD KNOXVILLE HIGHWAY) TO US 321/SR 73/LAMAR ALAEXANDER PARKWAY, BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION (STATE ROUTE (SR) 162) FROM SR 33 (OLD KNOXVILLE HIGHWAY) TO US 321/SR 73/LAMAR ALAEXANDER PARKWAY, BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 756827422; 14311-100160_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Pellissippi Parkway (State Route (SR) 162) from its current terminus at SR 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/SR 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway in Blount County, Tennessee is proposed. The study area encompasses portions of the cities of Maryville, Alcoa, and Rockford, and the unincorporated Eagleton Village. Blount County is bordered on the north by Knox County, home to the majority of employment in the East Tennessee region. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs through Knox County, and SR 115/US 129 (Alcoa Highway) and SR 33 are major roadways connecting Alcoa and Maryville with Knox County. Blount County is bordered on the east by Sevier County, the fastest growing county in East Tennessee, while Blount County is the region's second fastest growing county. The concept of extending Pellissippi Parkway as a four-lane divided highway has been part of Knoxville regional transportation planning since 1977. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Build alternatives A and C would extend Pellissippi Parkway as a new four-lane divided roadway with diamond interchanges at SR 33, SR 35/US 411/SR 35, and SR 73/US 321 and share a common alignment from SR 33 to the vicinity of Brown School Road south of Wildwood Road. Alternative A would be 4.4 miles in length, while Alternative C would be about 4.7 miles in length. The proposed right-of-way for either alignment alternative would be a minimum of 300 feet and would be designed for traffic traveling 60 miles per hour. Build Alternative D would use portions of existing Sam Houston School Road, Peppermint Road, Hitch Road, and Helton Road to construct an improved two-lane roadway with a 50 mile-per-hour design speed. The length of the corridor would be about 5.8 miles. Total estimated costs for alternatives A, C, and D are $96.9 million, $104.6 million, and $59.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would enhance regional transportation system linkages; improve circumferential mobility by providing travel options to the existing radial roadway network; enhance roadway safety; and assist in achieving acceptable traffic flows. Travel time savings over the No Build Alternative are estimated at 11 minutes for alternatives A and C and seven to nine minutes for Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of alternatives A and C would do little to improve portions of the local road network with substandard cross sections. Build Alternative A would require eight stream crossings, 17.3 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 10 farm parcels, and displacement of five residences and one business. Build Alternative C would require seven stream crossings, 20.5 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 12 farm parcels, and displacement of 26 residences and two businesses. Build Alternative D would require eight stream crossings, 18.4 acres of floodplain encroachment, and displacement of 24 farm parcels and 21 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100160, 370 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION (STATE ROUTE (SR) 162) FROM SR 33 (OLD KNOXVILLE HIGHWAY) TO US 321/SR 73/LAMAR ALAEXANDER PARKWAY, BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION (STATE ROUTE (SR) 162) FROM SR 33 (OLD KNOXVILLE HIGHWAY) TO US 321/SR 73/LAMAR ALAEXANDER PARKWAY, BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 756827118; 14311-100160_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Pellissippi Parkway (State Route (SR) 162) from its current terminus at SR 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/SR 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway in Blount County, Tennessee is proposed. The study area encompasses portions of the cities of Maryville, Alcoa, and Rockford, and the unincorporated Eagleton Village. Blount County is bordered on the north by Knox County, home to the majority of employment in the East Tennessee region. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs through Knox County, and SR 115/US 129 (Alcoa Highway) and SR 33 are major roadways connecting Alcoa and Maryville with Knox County. Blount County is bordered on the east by Sevier County, the fastest growing county in East Tennessee, while Blount County is the region's second fastest growing county. The concept of extending Pellissippi Parkway as a four-lane divided highway has been part of Knoxville regional transportation planning since 1977. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Build alternatives A and C would extend Pellissippi Parkway as a new four-lane divided roadway with diamond interchanges at SR 33, SR 35/US 411/SR 35, and SR 73/US 321 and share a common alignment from SR 33 to the vicinity of Brown School Road south of Wildwood Road. Alternative A would be 4.4 miles in length, while Alternative C would be about 4.7 miles in length. The proposed right-of-way for either alignment alternative would be a minimum of 300 feet and would be designed for traffic traveling 60 miles per hour. Build Alternative D would use portions of existing Sam Houston School Road, Peppermint Road, Hitch Road, and Helton Road to construct an improved two-lane roadway with a 50 mile-per-hour design speed. The length of the corridor would be about 5.8 miles. Total estimated costs for alternatives A, C, and D are $96.9 million, $104.6 million, and $59.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would enhance regional transportation system linkages; improve circumferential mobility by providing travel options to the existing radial roadway network; enhance roadway safety; and assist in achieving acceptable traffic flows. Travel time savings over the No Build Alternative are estimated at 11 minutes for alternatives A and C and seven to nine minutes for Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of alternatives A and C would do little to improve portions of the local road network with substandard cross sections. Build Alternative A would require eight stream crossings, 17.3 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 10 farm parcels, and displacement of five residences and one business. Build Alternative C would require seven stream crossings, 20.5 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 12 farm parcels, and displacement of 26 residences and two businesses. Build Alternative D would require eight stream crossings, 18.4 acres of floodplain encroachment, and displacement of 24 farm parcels and 21 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100160, 370 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION (STATE ROUTE (SR) 162) FROM SR 33 (OLD KNOXVILLE HIGHWAY) TO US 321/SR 73/LAMAR ALAEXANDER PARKWAY, BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 16384200; 14311 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Pellissippi Parkway (State Route (SR) 162) from its current terminus at SR 33 (Old Knoxville Highway) to US 321/SR 73/Lamar Alexander Parkway in Blount County, Tennessee is proposed. The study area encompasses portions of the cities of Maryville, Alcoa, and Rockford, and the unincorporated Eagleton Village. Blount County is bordered on the north by Knox County, home to the majority of employment in the East Tennessee region. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs through Knox County, and SR 115/US 129 (Alcoa Highway) and SR 33 are major roadways connecting Alcoa and Maryville with Knox County. Blount County is bordered on the east by Sevier County, the fastest growing county in East Tennessee, while Blount County is the region's second fastest growing county. The concept of extending Pellissippi Parkway as a four-lane divided highway has been part of Knoxville regional transportation planning since 1977. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Build alternatives A and C would extend Pellissippi Parkway as a new four-lane divided roadway with diamond interchanges at SR 33, SR 35/US 411/SR 35, and SR 73/US 321 and share a common alignment from SR 33 to the vicinity of Brown School Road south of Wildwood Road. Alternative A would be 4.4 miles in length, while Alternative C would be about 4.7 miles in length. The proposed right-of-way for either alignment alternative would be a minimum of 300 feet and would be designed for traffic traveling 60 miles per hour. Build Alternative D would use portions of existing Sam Houston School Road, Peppermint Road, Hitch Road, and Helton Road to construct an improved two-lane roadway with a 50 mile-per-hour design speed. The length of the corridor would be about 5.8 miles. Total estimated costs for alternatives A, C, and D are $96.9 million, $104.6 million, and $59.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would enhance regional transportation system linkages; improve circumferential mobility by providing travel options to the existing radial roadway network; enhance roadway safety; and assist in achieving acceptable traffic flows. Travel time savings over the No Build Alternative are estimated at 11 minutes for alternatives A and C and seven to nine minutes for Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of alternatives A and C would do little to improve portions of the local road network with substandard cross sections. Build Alternative A would require eight stream crossings, 17.3 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 10 farm parcels, and displacement of five residences and one business. Build Alternative C would require seven stream crossings, 20.5 acres of floodplain encroachment, displacement of 12 farm parcels, and displacement of 26 residences and two businesses. Build Alternative D would require eight stream crossings, 18.4 acres of floodplain encroachment, and displacement of 24 farm parcels and 21 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100160, 370 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=PELLISSIPPI+PARKWAY+EXTENSION+%28STATE+ROUTE+%28SR%29+162%29+FROM+SR+33+%28OLD+KNOXVILLE+HIGHWAY%29+TO+US+321%2FSR+73%2FLAMAR+ALAEXANDER+PARKWAY%2C+BLOUNT+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Regulatory Practices on the Savannah District Partnering for Efficiency and Effectiveness T2 - 35th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP 2010) AN - 754176274; 5735263 JF - 35th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP 2010) AU - Johnson, Edward Y1 - 2010/04/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 27 KW - USA, Georgia, Savannah KW - Savannahs KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754176274?accountid=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=35th+Annual+Conference+of+the+National+Association+of+Environmental+Professionals+%28NAEP+2010%29&rft.atitle=Regulatory+Practices+on+the+Savannah+District+Partnering+for+Efficiency+and+Effectiveness&rft.au=Johnson%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2010-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=35th+Annual+Conference+of+the+National+Association+of+Environmental+Professionals+%28NAEP+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://data.memberclicks.com/site/naep/10Final%20Programweb%20.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - USACE Regulatory Program: Determining the Scope of Analysis in the CWA 404 Regulatory Program T2 - 35th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP 2010) AN - 754161213; 5735262 JF - 35th Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP 2010) AU - Allen, Aaron Y1 - 2010/04/27/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 27 KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754161213?accountid=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=35th+Annual+Conference+of+the+National+Association+of+Environmental+Professionals+%28NAEP+2010%29&rft.atitle=USACE+Regulatory+Program%3A+Determining+the+Scope+of+Analysis+in+the+CWA+404+Regulatory+Program&rft.au=Allen%2C+Aaron&rft.aulast=Allen&rft.aufirst=Aaron&rft.date=2010-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=35th+Annual+Conference+of+the+National+Association+of+Environmental+Professionals+%28NAEP+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://data.memberclicks.com/site/naep/10Final%20Programweb%20.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827367; 14301-100150_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. This supplemental draft EIS addresses changed conditions created by the Station Fire, which burned 251 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100150, 230 pages and maps, April 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16368733; 14301 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. This supplemental draft EIS addresses changed conditions created by the Station Fire, which burned 251 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100150, 230 pages and maps, April 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827405; 14297-100146_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of 11.2 miles of the existing State Route (SR) 25 two-lane highway with a four-lane expressway in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. SR 25 runs northwest through Hollister Valley ending at U.S. 101 after crossing the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek. Agriculture dominates the surrounding landscape and slow-moving farm equipment and trucks share this roadway with local and commuter traffic. Two proposed projects are evaluated in this Tier 1 draft EIS: a route adoption and a proposed construction project within the limits of the proposed route adoption. Five alternatives are under consideration: a No Build Alternative; two route adoption alignments (Alternatives 1 and 2); and two proposed build alternatives (Alternatives A and B). Both route adoption alternatives would extend 11.2 miles and share the same alignment from 0.5 mile south of Shore Road in San Benito County to U.S. 101 in Santa Clara County. Between 0.5 mile south of Shore Road and the southern end of the project at San Felipe Road, Alternative 1 proposes to align the future four-lane expressway generally to the east of the existing highway. Alternative 2 would be aligned mostly to the west of the existing two-lane highway. Both alignments would be wide enough to accommodate a future four-lane expressway, which would be 342 feet in width including the median, and frontage roads on one or both sides. Other improvements would include new bridges over the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, and overcrossings of the Union Pacific Railroad Hollister Branch line and the Union Pacific main line just east of U.S. 101. The proposed build alternatives would extend 3.8 miles in San Benito County, from San Felipe Road in Hollister to just west of Hudner Lane. A four-lane expressway would replace the existing two-lane conventional highway. Alternative A would be constructed at the southeastern end of the Alternative 1 route adoption alignment. Alternative B would be constructed at the southwestern end of the Alternative 2 route adoption alignment. Unlike the route adoption alternatives, the build alternatives propose a realigned and widened at-grade intersection instead of an interchange at State Route 25 and State Route 156. Construction for this portion of the route is proposed in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed route adoption would facilitate local and regional land use planning by identifying future right-of-way needed for the SR 25 corridor. The proposed build project would improve traffic flow and reduce delays on SR 25 between San Felipe Road in Hollister and Hudner Lane in San Benito County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The route adoption alternatives would have potential impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife migration corridors along the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, including critical habitat for Central California steelhead and the California tiger salamander. The proposed build alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts to farmland with up to 660 acres being converted. Relocations of up to 21 residences, 10 businesses, and various utilities would be required. Noise impact could occur at one location. Potential impacts to visual resources, biological resources, aggregate mining, paleontology, and hazardous waste could also occur. JF - EPA number: 100146, 338 pages and maps, April 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOLLISTER TO GILROY STATE ROUTE 25 WIDENING AND ROUTE ADOPTION, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909408; 14297 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of 11.2 miles of the existing State Route (SR) 25 two-lane highway with a four-lane expressway in San Benito and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. SR 25 runs northwest through Hollister Valley ending at U.S. 101 after crossing the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek. Agriculture dominates the surrounding landscape and slow-moving farm equipment and trucks share this roadway with local and commuter traffic. Two proposed projects are evaluated in this Tier 1 draft EIS: a route adoption and a proposed construction project within the limits of the proposed route adoption. Five alternatives are under consideration: a No Build Alternative; two route adoption alignments (Alternatives 1 and 2); and two proposed build alternatives (Alternatives A and B). Both route adoption alternatives would extend 11.2 miles and share the same alignment from 0.5 mile south of Shore Road in San Benito County to U.S. 101 in Santa Clara County. Between 0.5 mile south of Shore Road and the southern end of the project at San Felipe Road, Alternative 1 proposes to align the future four-lane expressway generally to the east of the existing highway. Alternative 2 would be aligned mostly to the west of the existing two-lane highway. Both alignments would be wide enough to accommodate a future four-lane expressway, which would be 342 feet in width including the median, and frontage roads on one or both sides. Other improvements would include new bridges over the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, and overcrossings of the Union Pacific Railroad Hollister Branch line and the Union Pacific main line just east of U.S. 101. The proposed build alternatives would extend 3.8 miles in San Benito County, from San Felipe Road in Hollister to just west of Hudner Lane. A four-lane expressway would replace the existing two-lane conventional highway. Alternative A would be constructed at the southeastern end of the Alternative 1 route adoption alignment. Alternative B would be constructed at the southwestern end of the Alternative 2 route adoption alignment. Unlike the route adoption alternatives, the build alternatives propose a realigned and widened at-grade intersection instead of an interchange at State Route 25 and State Route 156. Construction for this portion of the route is proposed in 2015. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed route adoption would facilitate local and regional land use planning by identifying future right-of-way needed for the SR 25 corridor. The proposed build project would improve traffic flow and reduce delays on SR 25 between San Felipe Road in Hollister and Hudner Lane in San Benito County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The route adoption alternatives would have potential impacts to riparian habitat and wildlife migration corridors along the Pajaro River and Carnadero Creek, including critical habitat for Central California steelhead and the California tiger salamander. The proposed build alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts to farmland with up to 660 acres being converted. Relocations of up to 21 residences, 10 businesses, and various utilities would be required. Noise impact could occur at one location. Potential impacts to visual resources, biological resources, aggregate mining, paleontology, and hazardous waste could also occur. JF - EPA number: 100146, 338 pages and maps, April 19, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HOLLISTER+TO+GILROY+STATE+ROUTE+25+WIDENING+AND+ROUTE+ADOPTION%2C+SAN+BENITO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Web-based Geospatial Analysis in Support of Military Humanitarian Assistance Programs T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AN - 839617317; 5885847 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AU - Clark, Timothy AU - Johnson, Kevin Y1 - 2010/04/14/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 14 KW - {Q1} KW - Military KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839617317?accountid=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+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.atitle=Web-based+Geospatial+Analysis+in+Support+of+Military+Humanitarian+Assistance+Programs&rft.au=Clark%2C+Timothy%3BJohnson%2C+Kevin&rft.aulast=Clark&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2010-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/SessionList.cfm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Watershed-based Human Terrain Analysis: Designing a Geospatial Methodology for Civil-Military Operations in Afghanistan's Helmand River Watershed T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AN - 839616485; 5884985 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AU - Palmer-Moloney, L Y1 - 2010/04/14/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 14 KW - {Q1} KW - Afghanistan KW - Watersheds KW - Rivers KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839616485?accountid=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+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.atitle=Watershed-based+Human+Terrain+Analysis%3A+Designing+a+Geospatial+Methodology+for+Civil-Military+Operations+in+Afghanistan%27s+Helmand+River+Watershed&rft.au=Palmer-Moloney%2C+L&rft.aulast=Palmer-Moloney&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2010-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/SessionList.cfm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Geospatial Information Officers (GIOs): Champions of GIS T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AN - 839613317; 5884988 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AU - Fontanella, Joseph AU - Johnston, Jerry AU - Krucoff, Barney AU - Lowe, Stephen AU - Siderelis, Karen AU - Trainor, Timothy Y1 - 2010/04/14/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 14 KW - {Q1} KW - Geographic information systems KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839613317?accountid=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+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.atitle=Geospatial+Information+Officers+%28GIOs%29%3A+Champions+of+GIS&rft.au=Fontanella%2C+Joseph%3BJohnston%2C+Jerry%3BKrucoff%2C+Barney%3BLowe%2C+Stephen%3BSiderelis%2C+Karen%3BTrainor%2C+Timothy&rft.aulast=Fontanella&rft.aufirst=Joseph&rft.date=2010-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/SessionList.cfm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Winning Hearts and Minds Through Participation: The Military and PGIS T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AN - 839613256; 5884986 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AU - Young, Jason Y1 - 2010/04/14/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 14 KW - {Q1} KW - Military KW - Heart KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839613256?accountid=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+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.atitle=Winning+Hearts+and+Minds+Through+Participation%3A+The+Military+and+PGIS&rft.au=Young%2C+Jason&rft.aulast=Young&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft.date=2010-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/SessionList.cfm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Spatial and Aspatial Considerations of Civil Military Elements from Military Doctrine T2 - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AN - 839606259; 5884112 JF - 2010 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG 2010) AU - Holeva, Paul Y1 - 2010/04/14/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 14 KW - {Q1} KW - Military KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/839606259?accountid=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+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.atitle=Spatial+and+Aspatial+Considerations+of+Civil+Military+Elements+from+Military+Doctrine&rft.au=Holeva%2C+Paul&rft.aulast=Holeva&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2010-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+of+American+Geographers+%28AAG+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/aag_org/program/SessionList.cfm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-11 N1 - Last updated - 2011-01-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 127/SR 28 IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-40 AT CROSSVILLE TO STATE ROUTE 62 AT CLARKRANGE, CUMBERLAND AND FENTRESS COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 127/SR 28 IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-40 AT CROSSVILLE TO STATE ROUTE 62 AT CLARKRANGE, CUMBERLAND AND FENTRESS COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 756827286; 14285-100134_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a 14.1-mile section of US 127 (State Route (SR) 28) from Interstate 40 (I-40) in Crossville northward to the intersection of US 127 and SR 62 in Clarkrange, Cumberland and Fentress counties, Tennessee is proposed. US 127 is a major north-south arterial extending from the Georgia state line north through the eastern section of central Tennessee to the Kentucky state line. The study area lacks local and regional access to I-40. The existing US 127 roadway design exhibits numerous deficiencies and capacity problems which have resulted in a high number of crashes along the highway. Recent increases in traffic volume have resulted in a significant decline in level of service, and traffic volumes are anticipated to increases at an even greater rate in the future. Problems moving persons and goods along the corridor have limited local and regional economic growth potentials. The proposed action would upgrade the highway within the study corridor to a four- and five-lane highway. The cross-section for the four-lane roadway would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction with 12-foot outside shoulders, six-foot inside shoulders, and a 48-foot depressed median within a 250-foot right-of-way. The typical section for the five-lane roadway would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a 12-foot center turn lane, and 12-foot outside shoulders within a 200-foot right-of-way. This final EIS presents the proposed action with three alignment options and a No Action Alternative for comparison. Construction, rights-off-way acquisition, and utilities relocations costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $241 million, $31.9 million, and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety for vehicular travel and pedestrian movements, reduce travel delays for through traffic, enhance regional and local economic development opportunities, and improve transportation linkages in the Upper Cumberland Region of Tennessee. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 442 acres of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 100 residences, 13 businesses, and two community service facilities, as well as 442 acres of farmland, including 104 acres of prime or unique farmland, 4.7 acres of ponds, 2,652 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 6,067 linear feet of intermittent stream channel, 1,836 linear feet of wet weather conveyances, two seeps, two springs, and 4.6 acres of wetlands. The project would include the construction of a bridge across Clear Creek, which is federally designated habitat for the spotfin chub, a federally protected species. Construction workers would encounter 45 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0474D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100134, 280 pages and maps, April 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee 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/756827286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+127%2FSR+28+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-40+AT+CROSSVILLE+TO+STATE+ROUTE+62+AT+CLARKRANGE%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+FENTRESS+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=US+127%2FSR+28+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-40+AT+CROSSVILLE+TO+STATE+ROUTE+62+AT+CLARKRANGE%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+FENTRESS+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 127/SR 28 IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-40 AT CROSSVILLE TO STATE ROUTE 62 AT CLARKRANGE, CUMBERLAND AND FENTRESS COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 754908976; 14285 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a 14.1-mile section of US 127 (State Route (SR) 28) from Interstate 40 (I-40) in Crossville northward to the intersection of US 127 and SR 62 in Clarkrange, Cumberland and Fentress counties, Tennessee is proposed. US 127 is a major north-south arterial extending from the Georgia state line north through the eastern section of central Tennessee to the Kentucky state line. The study area lacks local and regional access to I-40. The existing US 127 roadway design exhibits numerous deficiencies and capacity problems which have resulted in a high number of crashes along the highway. Recent increases in traffic volume have resulted in a significant decline in level of service, and traffic volumes are anticipated to increases at an even greater rate in the future. Problems moving persons and goods along the corridor have limited local and regional economic growth potentials. The proposed action would upgrade the highway within the study corridor to a four- and five-lane highway. The cross-section for the four-lane roadway would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction with 12-foot outside shoulders, six-foot inside shoulders, and a 48-foot depressed median within a 250-foot right-of-way. The typical section for the five-lane roadway would consist of two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, a 12-foot center turn lane, and 12-foot outside shoulders within a 200-foot right-of-way. This final EIS presents the proposed action with three alignment options and a No Action Alternative for comparison. Construction, rights-off-way acquisition, and utilities relocations costs under the preferred alternative are estimated at $241 million, $31.9 million, and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve safety for vehicular travel and pedestrian movements, reduce travel delays for through traffic, enhance regional and local economic development opportunities, and improve transportation linkages in the Upper Cumberland Region of Tennessee. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 442 acres of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 100 residences, 13 businesses, and two community service facilities, as well as 442 acres of farmland, including 104 acres of prime or unique farmland, 4.7 acres of ponds, 2,652 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 6,067 linear feet of intermittent stream channel, 1,836 linear feet of wet weather conveyances, two seeps, two springs, and 4.6 acres of wetlands. The project would include the construction of a bridge across Clear Creek, which is federally designated habitat for the spotfin chub, a federally protected species. Construction workers would encounter 45 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0474D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100134, 280 pages and maps, April 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Tennessee 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/754908976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+127%2FSR+28+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-40+AT+CROSSVILLE+TO+STATE+ROUTE+62+AT+CLARKRANGE%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+FENTRESS+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=US+127%2FSR+28+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-40+AT+CROSSVILLE+TO+STATE+ROUTE+62+AT+CLARKRANGE%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+FENTRESS+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Loess Caves and the Siege of Vicksburg T2 - 2010 Joint Meeting of the North-Central and South-Central Sections of Geological Society of America AN - 754192333; 5755712 JF - 2010 Joint Meeting of the North-Central and South-Central Sections of Geological Society of America AU - Bufkin, Amber AU - Harrelson, Danny Y1 - 2010/04/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 11 KW - Caves KW - Loess soils KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754192333?accountid=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+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North-Central+and+South-Central+Sections+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Loess+Caves+and+the+Siege+of+Vicksburg&rft.au=Bufkin%2C+Amber%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny&rft.aulast=Bufkin&rft.aufirst=Amber&rft.date=2010-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North-Central+and+South-Central+Sections+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010NC/finalprogram/index.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Technical Opportunities and Challenges for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Implementation T2 - 2010 Ground Water Summit AN - 754191937; 5753216 JF - 2010 Ground Water Summit AU - Mirecki, June Y1 - 2010/04/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 11 KW - Aquifers KW - Storage KW - Ground water KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754191937?accountid=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+Ground+Water+Summit&rft.atitle=Technical+Opportunities+and+Challenges+for+Aquifer+Storage+and+Recovery+Implementation&rft.au=Mirecki%2C+June&rft.aulast=Mirecki&rft.aufirst=June&rft.date=2010-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Ground+Water+Summit&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://ngwa.confex.com/ngwa/2010gws/webprogram/meeting.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Disappearance of the Civil War Cannon Whistling Dick T2 - 2010 Joint Meeting of the North-Central and South-Central Sections of Geological Society of America AN - 754182424; 5755713 JF - 2010 Joint Meeting of the North-Central and South-Central Sections of Geological Society of America AU - Harrelson, Danny AU - Eckert, Casey AU - Bufkin, Amber Y1 - 2010/04/11/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 11 KW - War KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754182424?accountid=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+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North-Central+and+South-Central+Sections+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=The+Disappearance+of+the+Civil+War+Cannon+Whistling+Dick&rft.au=Harrelson%2C+Danny%3BEckert%2C+Casey%3BBufkin%2C+Amber&rft.aulast=Harrelson&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2010-04-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North-Central+and+South-Central+Sections+of+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010NC/finalprogram/index.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monitoring, modeling, and management impacts of bivalve filter feeders in the oligohaline and tidal fresh regions of the Chesapeake Bay system AN - 745928816; 13019863 AB - Populations of bivalve filter feeders are distributed throughout the oligohaline waters of the Chesapeake Bay system and, to a lesser extent, in tidal fresh waters as well. Previous studies indicate these bivalves significantly diminish phytoplankton concentrations in one major tributary, the Potomac River, and observed chlorophyll concentrations suggest bivalve influence on phytoplankton in other oligohaline reaches. We incorporated a model of these bivalves into an existing eutrophication model of the system. The model indicated that bivalves may reduce phytoplankton concentrations in oligohaline and tidal fresh waters throughout the system but the most significant effects were noted in the Potomac and Patuxent tributaries. Bivalve impacts were related to hydraulic residence time. The greatest phytoplankton reductions occurred in the regions with the longest residence time. Model carbon and nutrient budgets indicated bivalves removed 14% to 40% of the carbon load, 11% to 23% of the nitrogen load, and 37% to 84% of the phosphorus load to the regions where their impact on computed chlorophyll was greatest. JF - Ecological Modelling AU - Cerco, Carl F AU - Noel, Mark R AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Mail stop EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, carl.f.cerco@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/04/10/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 10 SP - 1054 EP - 1064 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 221 IS - 7 SN - 0304-3800, 0304-3800 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Potomac River KW - Eutrophication model KW - Rangia cuneata KW - Corbicula fluminea KW - Hydraulics KW - Chlorophylls KW - Chlorophyll KW - Residence time KW - Eutrophication KW - Phosphorus KW - Phytoplankton KW - Nutrients KW - Models KW - Carbon KW - USA, Maryland, Potomac R. KW - Brackishwater environment KW - Mollusks KW - Tributaries KW - Rivers KW - Freshwater environments KW - Filter feeders KW - Estuaries KW - Brackish KW - Pollution Load KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Model Studies KW - Bivalvia KW - Filters KW - Tidal models KW - Monitoring KW - Nitrogen KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - Q2 09185:Organic compounds KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies 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 - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/745928816?accountid=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=Monitoring%2C+modeling%2C+and+management+impacts+of+bivalve+filter+feeders+in+the+oligohaline+and+tidal+fresh+regions+of+the+Chesapeake+Bay+system&rft.au=Cerco%2C+Carl+F%3BNoel%2C+Mark+R&rft.aulast=Cerco&rft.aufirst=Carl&rft.date=2010-04-10&rft.volume=221&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1054&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Modelling&rft.issn=03043800&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2009.07.024 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chlorophylls; Eutrophication; Residence time; Estuaries; Filter feeders; Brackishwater environment; Phytoplankton; Tidal models; Tributaries; Rivers; Chlorophyll; Carbon; Freshwater environments; Nutrients; Models; Nitrogen; Filters; Hydraulics; Phosphorus; Pollution Load; Monitoring; Mollusks; Model Studies; Bivalvia; USA, Maryland, Potomac R.; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay; Brackish DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.07.024 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 67 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255112; 14284-3_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 49 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255101; 14284-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 43 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255098; 14284-3_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 42 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255092; 14284-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 34 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255068; 14284-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 33 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876255054; 14284-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876255054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254740; 14284-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 10 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254735; 14284-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254732; 14284-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254729; 14284-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 95 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254701; 14284-3_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 83 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254674; 14284-3_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 75 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254664; 14284-3_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 31 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254496; 14284-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254485; 14284-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254473; 14284-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254467; 14284-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254463; 14284-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 53 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254386; 14284-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 48 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254384; 14284-3_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 47 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254382; 14284-3_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 36 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254380; 14284-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 35 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254373; 14284-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 96 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254008; 14284-3_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 90 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254007; 14284-3_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 30 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254003; 14284-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 28 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254002; 14284-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 27 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876254001; 14284-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876254001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 94 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876253260; 14284-3_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 94 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876253260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 93 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876253259; 14284-3_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876253259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 92 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252700; 14284-3_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 92 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 88 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252699; 14284-3_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 87 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252698; 14284-3_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 82 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252697; 14284-3_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 78 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252696; 14284-3_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 91 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252410; 14284-3_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 85 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876252366; 14284-3_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876252366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 52 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251823; 14284-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 51 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251819; 14284-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 50 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251815; 14284-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 39 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251810; 14284-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 38 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251806; 14284-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 26 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251792; 14284-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 18 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251790; 14284-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 15 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251789; 14284-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 32 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251125; 14284-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 29 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251119; 14284-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 21 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251112; 14284-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 20 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251107; 14284-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 13 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251004; 14284-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 12 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251003; 14284-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251002; 14284-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251001; 14284-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876251000; 14284-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876251000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 69 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876249106; 14284-3_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876249106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 44 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876249047; 14284-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876249047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 56 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876249001; 14284-3_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876249001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 55 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248984; 14284-3_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 76 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248881; 14284-3_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 72 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248876; 14284-3_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 71 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248871; 14284-3_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 46 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248866; 14284-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 45 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248861; 14284-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 23 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248379; 14284-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 22 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876248371; 14284-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876248371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 65 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876246484; 14284-3_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876246484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 60 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876246476; 14284-3_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876246476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 59 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876246465; 14284-3_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876246465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 98 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876246371; 14284-3_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 98 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876246371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 73 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876245155; 14284-3_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876245155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 64 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876245143; 14284-3_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876245143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 63 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876245124; 14284-3_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876245124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 62 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876245109; 14284-3_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876245109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 54 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876244951; 14284-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876244951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 25 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876244871; 14284-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876244871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 24 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876244847; 14284-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876244847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. [Part 17 of 98] T2 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 876244832; 14284-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/876244832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827464; 14281-100130_0008 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827461; 14281-100130_0007 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827457; 14281-100130_0006 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 756827451; 14278-100127_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 756827427; 14278-100127_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827416; 14281-100130_0005 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827325; 14281-100130_0003 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827279; 14281-100130_0004 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827261; 14281-100130_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827253; 14281-100130_0002 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. AN - 756827235; 14282-100131_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Designation of the Northwest Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged material offshore and west of the Territory of Guam is proposed. An interim ODMDS was designated three nautical miles (nm) offshore of Apra Harbor in 1977 but never used, and the interim site expired, along with all other interim disposal sites in the United States and Pacific Territories, on January 1, 1997. Since then, there has been an increased need for dredging in Guam and the lack of a designated ODMDS has complicated dredged material management. The island of Guam is volcanic and does not have a continental shelf. The slope tends to increase rapidly offshore of Guam and depths can reach 6,000 feet within 3 nm. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to monitoring and enforcement procedures, navigational safety, natural hazards as they relate to siting of the ODMDS, and impacts to recreation, fishing, and benthic habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Guam would rely on the two existing management options for dredged material, beneficial use and upland dewatering. The North Alternative would designate a 17-square-nm ODMDS north of outer Apra Harbor approximately 13.7 nm offshore and occurring at a depth of approximately 6,560 feet. Under the Northwest Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, an ODMDS would be designated northwest of Apra Harbor 11.1 nm offshore. The ODMDS would be 45 square nm with depth ranges of 8,200 feet to 9,055 feet. Under both action alternatives, the discharge zone on the surface would be round, with a radius of 1,640 feet at the center. The worst-case scenario of discharge of one million cubic yards of coarse-grained dredged material during a given year would yield a maximum footprint of dredged material roughly circular in shape with a diameter of approximately three miles and covering an area of seven square miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide an additional option for the management of suitable material dredged from Guam and surrounding waters over the next 30 years including anticipated volume of dredged material generated by the planned increase in military presence on Guam, which will require harbor and navigation improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Benthic infaunal and epifaunal species would experience high levels of mortality at the center of the proposed ODMDS. Slower-settling silt and clay particles could impact plankton communities. The effect of dredged material transport barges transiting to the ODMDS alternatives combined with a potential increase in large vessel traffic would have the potential for cumulative visual impacts. Accidental spillage or overflow from disposal barges could result in the unintended release of dredged material within coral reef habitat. Military vessels and commercial fishing vessels could occasionally encounter barges transporting dredged material between Apra Harbor and the proposed ODMDS. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0327D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100131, 275 pages and Appendices, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Oceans KW - Guam KW - Philippine Sea KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Tiyan, Guam; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827180; 14281-100130_0010 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827160; 14281-100130_0011 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827154; 14281-100130_0009 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. AN - 756827149; 14282-100131_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Designation of the Northwest Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged material offshore and west of the Territory of Guam is proposed. An interim ODMDS was designated three nautical miles (nm) offshore of Apra Harbor in 1977 but never used, and the interim site expired, along with all other interim disposal sites in the United States and Pacific Territories, on January 1, 1997. Since then, there has been an increased need for dredging in Guam and the lack of a designated ODMDS has complicated dredged material management. The island of Guam is volcanic and does not have a continental shelf. The slope tends to increase rapidly offshore of Guam and depths can reach 6,000 feet within 3 nm. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to monitoring and enforcement procedures, navigational safety, natural hazards as they relate to siting of the ODMDS, and impacts to recreation, fishing, and benthic habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Guam would rely on the two existing management options for dredged material, beneficial use and upland dewatering. The North Alternative would designate a 17-square-nm ODMDS north of outer Apra Harbor approximately 13.7 nm offshore and occurring at a depth of approximately 6,560 feet. Under the Northwest Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, an ODMDS would be designated northwest of Apra Harbor 11.1 nm offshore. The ODMDS would be 45 square nm with depth ranges of 8,200 feet to 9,055 feet. Under both action alternatives, the discharge zone on the surface would be round, with a radius of 1,640 feet at the center. The worst-case scenario of discharge of one million cubic yards of coarse-grained dredged material during a given year would yield a maximum footprint of dredged material roughly circular in shape with a diameter of approximately three miles and covering an area of seven square miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide an additional option for the management of suitable material dredged from Guam and surrounding waters over the next 30 years including anticipated volume of dredged material generated by the planned increase in military presence on Guam, which will require harbor and navigation improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Benthic infaunal and epifaunal species would experience high levels of mortality at the center of the proposed ODMDS. Slower-settling silt and clay particles could impact plankton communities. The effect of dredged material transport barges transiting to the ODMDS alternatives combined with a potential increase in large vessel traffic would have the potential for cumulative visual impacts. Accidental spillage or overflow from disposal barges could result in the unintended release of dredged material within coral reef habitat. Military vessels and commercial fishing vessels could occasionally encounter barges transporting dredged material between Apra Harbor and the proposed ODMDS. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0327D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100131, 275 pages and Appendices, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Oceans KW - Guam KW - Philippine Sea KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Tiyan, Guam; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. AN - 756827145; 14282-100131_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Designation of the Northwest Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged material offshore and west of the Territory of Guam is proposed. An interim ODMDS was designated three nautical miles (nm) offshore of Apra Harbor in 1977 but never used, and the interim site expired, along with all other interim disposal sites in the United States and Pacific Territories, on January 1, 1997. Since then, there has been an increased need for dredging in Guam and the lack of a designated ODMDS has complicated dredged material management. The island of Guam is volcanic and does not have a continental shelf. The slope tends to increase rapidly offshore of Guam and depths can reach 6,000 feet within 3 nm. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to monitoring and enforcement procedures, navigational safety, natural hazards as they relate to siting of the ODMDS, and impacts to recreation, fishing, and benthic habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Guam would rely on the two existing management options for dredged material, beneficial use and upland dewatering. The North Alternative would designate a 17-square-nm ODMDS north of outer Apra Harbor approximately 13.7 nm offshore and occurring at a depth of approximately 6,560 feet. Under the Northwest Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, an ODMDS would be designated northwest of Apra Harbor 11.1 nm offshore. The ODMDS would be 45 square nm with depth ranges of 8,200 feet to 9,055 feet. Under both action alternatives, the discharge zone on the surface would be round, with a radius of 1,640 feet at the center. The worst-case scenario of discharge of one million cubic yards of coarse-grained dredged material during a given year would yield a maximum footprint of dredged material roughly circular in shape with a diameter of approximately three miles and covering an area of seven square miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide an additional option for the management of suitable material dredged from Guam and surrounding waters over the next 30 years including anticipated volume of dredged material generated by the planned increase in military presence on Guam, which will require harbor and navigation improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Benthic infaunal and epifaunal species would experience high levels of mortality at the center of the proposed ODMDS. Slower-settling silt and clay particles could impact plankton communities. The effect of dredged material transport barges transiting to the ODMDS alternatives combined with a potential increase in large vessel traffic would have the potential for cumulative visual impacts. Accidental spillage or overflow from disposal barges could result in the unintended release of dredged material within coral reef habitat. Military vessels and commercial fishing vessels could occasionally encounter barges transporting dredged material between Apra Harbor and the proposed ODMDS. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0327D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100131, 275 pages and Appendices, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Oceans KW - Guam KW - Philippine Sea KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Tiyan, Guam; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 16384159; 14278 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374235; 14281 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC is severely congested and extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Key issues include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative would consist of a 16.1 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative, which is the recommended project, would consist of a 9.9 mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryess) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the BEP Alternative would be $2.1 billion in 2008 dollars or $2.5 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $415.8 million in 2008 dollars or $941.1 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $47.2 million in 2008 dollars or $87.7 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silcon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion BTUs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. The number of noise and vibration severe impacts would be 140 to152 residential units and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 49 to 54 businesses, two residential units, and up to three community facilities would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0188D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100130, Final EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFFSHORE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM. AN - 16372965; 14282 AB - PURPOSE: Designation of the Northwest Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) as a permanent site for the ocean disposal of dredged material offshore and west of the Territory of Guam is proposed. An interim ODMDS was designated three nautical miles (nm) offshore of Apra Harbor in 1977 but never used, and the interim site expired, along with all other interim disposal sites in the United States and Pacific Territories, on January 1, 1997. Since then, there has been an increased need for dredging in Guam and the lack of a designated ODMDS has complicated dredged material management. The island of Guam is volcanic and does not have a continental shelf. The slope tends to increase rapidly offshore of Guam and depths can reach 6,000 feet within 3 nm. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to monitoring and enforcement procedures, navigational safety, natural hazards as they relate to siting of the ODMDS, and impacts to recreation, fishing, and benthic habitat. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, Guam would rely on the two existing management options for dredged material, beneficial use and upland dewatering. The North Alternative would designate a 17-square-nm ODMDS north of outer Apra Harbor approximately 13.7 nm offshore and occurring at a depth of approximately 6,560 feet. Under the Northwest Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, an ODMDS would be designated northwest of Apra Harbor 11.1 nm offshore. The ODMDS would be 45 square nm with depth ranges of 8,200 feet to 9,055 feet. Under both action alternatives, the discharge zone on the surface would be round, with a radius of 1,640 feet at the center. The worst-case scenario of discharge of one million cubic yards of coarse-grained dredged material during a given year would yield a maximum footprint of dredged material roughly circular in shape with a diameter of approximately three miles and covering an area of seven square miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide an additional option for the management of suitable material dredged from Guam and surrounding waters over the next 30 years including anticipated volume of dredged material generated by the planned increase in military presence on Guam, which will require harbor and navigation improvements. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Benthic infaunal and epifaunal species would experience high levels of mortality at the center of the proposed ODMDS. Slower-settling silt and clay particles could impact plankton communities. The effect of dredged material transport barges transiting to the ODMDS alternatives combined with a potential increase in large vessel traffic would have the potential for cumulative visual impacts. Accidental spillage or overflow from disposal barges could result in the unintended release of dredged material within coral reef habitat. Military vessels and commercial fishing vessels could occasionally encounter barges transporting dredged material between Apra Harbor and the proposed ODMDS. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465) and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0327D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100131, 275 pages and Appendices, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Corals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Oceans KW - Guam KW - Philippine Sea KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+AN+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFFSHORE+OF+THE+TERRITORY+OF+GUAM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Tiyan, Guam; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR - 35, OKLAHOMA-MEXICO/GULF COAST ELEMENT, TEXAS. AN - 16372115; 14284 AB - PURPOSE: The development of the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 (TTC-35), extending across Texas from the Oklahoma state line, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, to the Mexico international border and/or the Gulf Coast, is proposed. TTC-35 would be a major component of the overall TTC system, which is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that would incorporate existing and new highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way into an integrated system. Utilities to be accommodated would include water supply lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband telecommunications, and other telecommunications services. This system would help accommodate economic and population growth in the vicinity of the corridor; growth of 145 percent is expected within the region served by the corridor between 2000 and 2060. Current traffic volumes for most segments of the interstate system serving the corridor exceed design capacity and demands being placed on related highways and railroads are outpacing new construction plans. The TTC-35 multimodal corridor would ultimately include two separate lanes for trucks and three separate lanes for passenger vehicles in each direction, six rail lines, with one in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail and freight rail, and a 200-foot-wide utility zone, all within a 1,200-foot right-of-way. TTC-35 would be completed in phases over 50 years based on transportation needs. This tier one final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and 12 reasonable corridor alternatives, ranging from four to 18 miles in width. Comments and concerns during circulation of the tier one draft EIS focused on potential land acquisitions and negative impact to property values in the project area. The No Action alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative because the magnitude of potential impact would be unprecedented. Considerations include: the size of the study area (400 to 500 miles in length and 5,000 to 6,000 square miles in area); the number of potentially affected people (approximately one million); and the 50-year development time frame of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: TCC-35 would improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address anticipated transportation needs of Texas along the Interstate 35 (I-35) corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the state. The TCC system would provide numerous options and intermodal connections to freight operators and passengers. Poor safety and service statistics on the I-35 corridor would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace residential and commercial developments, parkland, historic districts and sites and archaeologic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, oil and natural gas well sites and other potential and active mineral extraction sites, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, habitat for federally protected species of plants and animals, landfills, farmland, stream channel segments and floodplains, reservoir storage capacity, and wetlands. Minority and/or low-income populations along the corridor would be disproportionately affected by TCC developments in some areas. The corridor would traverse nonattainment zones for criterion air pollutants in some areas, further degrading air quality in these areas. The corridor would traverse aquifers, potentially threatening groundwater quality used for human water supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0412D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100133, Four Volumes on CD-ROM, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-05-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Communication Systems KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Mineral Resources KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological 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/16372115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRANS-TEXAS+CORRIDOR+-+35%2C+OKLAHOMA-MEXICO%2FGULF+COAST+ELEMENT%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 84 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873132046; 14277-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 73 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873132016; 14277-6_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 64 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873132001; 14277-6_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 63 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131993; 14277-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 61 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131972; 14277-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 57 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131966; 14277-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 56 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131957; 14277-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 55 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131949; 14277-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 51 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873131936; 14277-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 37 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130848; 14277-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 86 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130621; 14277-6_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 79 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130593; 14277-6_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 104 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130571; 14277-6_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 104 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 103 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130555; 14277-6_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 103 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 100 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130539; 14277-6_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 100 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 70 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130537; 14277-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 99 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130518; 14277-6_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 99 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 54 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130515; 14277-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 53 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130493; 14277-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 25 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130437; 14277-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 87 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130433; 14277-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 24 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130419; 14277-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 83 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130412; 14277-6_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 102 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130409; 14277-6_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 102 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 23 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130404; 14277-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 101 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130390; 14277-6_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 101 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 14 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130375; 14277-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 92 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130368; 14277-6_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 92 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 71 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130361; 14277-6_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 12 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130352; 14277-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 91 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130345; 14277-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 60 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130343; 14277-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130325; 14277-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 59 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130314; 14277-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130303; 14277-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 58 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130291; 14277-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130277; 14277-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 22 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130183; 14277-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 21 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130157; 14277-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 18 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130134; 14277-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 16 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130107; 14277-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 95 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130093; 14277-6_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 95 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 15 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130074; 14277-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 94 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130050; 14277-6_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 94 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130045; 14277-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 10 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130015; 14277-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 93 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873130007; 14277-6_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129995; 14277-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129976; 14277-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 30 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129464; 14277-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 43 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129410; 14277-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 29 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129406; 14277-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 42 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129377; 14277-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 27 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129376; 14277-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129360; 14277-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 26 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129329; 14277-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 41 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129321; 14277-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873129311; 14277-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 28 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128934; 14277-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 17 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128905; 14277-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 32 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128892; 14277-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 13 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128876; 14277-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 31 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128866; 14277-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128848; 14277-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128824; 14277-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 20 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128792; 14277-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 38 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128789; 14277-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 34 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128779; 14277-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 19 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128771; 14277-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 39 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128734; 14277-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 40 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128716; 14277-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 33 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128698; 14277-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 90 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128472; 14277-6_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 98 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128409; 14277-6_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 98 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 96 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128378; 14277-6_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 96 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 46 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128068; 14277-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 45 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128051; 14277-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 44 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873128043; 14277-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 82 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127872; 14277-6_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 81 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127867; 14277-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 80 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127859; 14277-6_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 77 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127833; 14277-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 76 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127679; 14277-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 69 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127668; 14277-6_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 68 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127654; 14277-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 66 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127636; 14277-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 49 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127625; 14277-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 48 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127617; 14277-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 47 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127611; 14277-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 88 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127164; 14277-6_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. [Part 85 of 104] T2 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 873127155; 14277-6_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KEYSTONE XL OIL PIPELINE PROJECT, APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR A PIPELINE EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO NEDERLAND, TEXAS. AN - 16368644; 14277 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to existing terminals in Nederland (Jefferson County) near Port Arthur and Moore Junction (Harris County) in Houston, Texas is proposed. The project, known as the Keystone XL Project, is proposed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) and would have a nominal capacity to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Hardisty to the terminals in Texas. In total, the Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,702 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, consisting of about 327 miles in Canada and 1,375 miles within the United States. The proposed pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 bpd, with up to 200,000 bpd delivered to an existing terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma and the remaining amount shipped to Nederland and Moore Junction. The project would include three new pipeline segments plus additional pumping capacity on the previously permitted Cushing Extension Segment of the Keystone Pipeline Project (Keystone Cushing Extension): Steele City Segment (from Morgan, Montana to Steele City, Nebraska) that connects to the northern end of the previously approved, and currently under construction, Keystone Cushing Extension; Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas) that connects to the southern end of the Keystone Cushing Extension; and Houston Lateral (from the Gulf Coast Segment, in Liberty County, Texas to Moore Junction, in Harris County, Texas). Project components would include 30 new pump stations, 74 mainline valves (MLVs), approximately 50 permanent access roads, one tank farm, and two crude oil delivery sites. Additional access roads, stockpile sites, railroad sidings and construction camps would be required during project construction. The pipeline would require a 110-foot wide construction right-of-way (ROW), consisting of a 60-foot temporary easement and a 50-foot permanent easement. In certain sensitive areas, which may include wetlands, cultural sites, shelterbelts, residential areas, or commercial/industrial areas, the construction ROW would be reduced to 85 feet. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, system alternatives, four major route alternatives, and alternative routes for the for the proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line in South Dakota that is needed to ensure power system stability given the loads required for providing electrical power to the pump stations in South Dakota. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline construction would provide transport for Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from the border with Canada to existing delivery points on the Gulf Coast and would supplement WCSB deliveries to the Cushing Oil Terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could result in groundwater quality degradation and erosion. The permanent ROW would impact 749.1 acres of grassland/rangeland and 175.6 acres of upland forest. Construction would result in loss and alteration of about 22,493 acres of wildlife habitat and cross a total of 91 perennial streams that support recreational or commercial fisheries (18 in Montana, 10 in South Dakota, 15 in Nebraska, 16 in Oklahoma, and 32 in Texas). The project is likely to adversely affect one species, the American burying beetle. The majority of land that would be affected is privately owned (21,333 acres) with nearly equal amounts of federal (579 acres) and state (582 acres) lands. Construction, operation, and maintenance would cause temporary and permanent impacts to land uses such as agriculture, rangeland, forestland, residential and planned development, commercial and industrial land, recreation and special interest areas, and visual resources. Rangeland is the most common land type, accounting for 11,533 acres or 54.3 percent of the total land that would be affected during construction; during operation 698 acres of the 8,613 acres, or 54.5 percent would be permanently impacted by the ROW. Agricultural land accounts for 5,484 acres impacted during construction with 2,011 acres needed for the permanent ROW. Forestland, development, and water and wetlands make up the remaining 2,523; 945; and 747 acres, respectively, which would be affected by construction. During operation of the pipeline 1,071, 465, and 368 acres, of forestland, developed land, and water and wetlands, respectively, would be included in the permanent ROW. Spills from the proposed pipeline, associated pump stations, valves, or pigging facilities could occur during Project operation and have the potential to result in larger-volume spills. JF - EPA number: 100126, Draft EIS--786 pages and maps and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Easements KW - Erosion KW - Farmlands KW - International Programs KW - Land Use KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Tanks KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Kansas KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - Oklahoma KW - South Dakota KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=KEYSTONE+XL+OIL+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT+FOR+A+PIPELINE+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+NEDERLAND%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; STA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Sensor-and-Dynamic Model-Enabled Deliberate/Accidental Chemical/Biological Contamination Assessment System Dedicated to Situational Awareness of Critical Water Distribution Infrastructure Security and Water Quality T2 - XI Conference on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Sensing AN - 742803546; 5683511 JF - XI Conference on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) Sensing AU - VanBlaricum, Vicki AU - Hock, Vince AU - Ginsberg, Mark AU - Smith, Eddy AU - Kroll, Dan AU - Russell, Kevin AU - Broadwater, Robert Y1 - 2010/04/05/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 05 KW - Water quality KW - Security KW - Infrastructure KW - Biological contamination KW - Chemical pollution KW - Contamination KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742803546?accountid=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=XI+Conference+on+Chemical%2C+Biological%2C+Radiological%2C+Nuclear%2C+and+Explosives+%28CBRNE%29+Sensing&rft.atitle=Sensor-and-Dynamic+Model-Enabled+Deliberate%2FAccidental+Chemical%2FBiological+Contamination+Assessment+System+Dedicated+to+Situational+Awareness+of+Critical+Water+Distribution+Infrastructure+Security+and+Water+Quality&rft.au=VanBlaricum%2C+Vicki%3BHock%2C+Vince%3BGinsberg%2C+Mark%3BSmith%2C+Eddy%3BKroll%2C+Dan%3BRussell%2C+Kevin%3BBroadwater%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=VanBlaricum&rft.aufirst=Vicki&rft.date=2010-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=XI+Conference+on+Chemical%2C+Biological%2C+Radiological%2C+Nuclear%2C+and+Explosives+%28CBRNE%29+Sensing&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://spie.org/app/program/index.cfm?fuseaction=conferencedetail&conf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-08-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Optimization of Groundwater Models T2 - Eleventh Copper Mountain Conference on Iterative Methods (CMCIM 2010) AN - 742817365; 5703390 JF - Eleventh Copper Mountain Conference on Iterative Methods (CMCIM 2010) AU - Winton, Corey AU - Kelley, C AU - Howington, Stacy AU - Eslinger, Owen AU - Pettway, Jackie Y1 - 2010/04/04/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Apr 04 KW - Ground water KW - Models KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742817365?accountid=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=Eleventh+Copper+Mountain+Conference+on+Iterative+Methods+%28CMCIM+2010%29&rft.atitle=Optimization+of+Groundwater+Models&rft.au=Winton%2C+Corey%3BKelley%2C+C%3BHowington%2C+Stacy%3BEslinger%2C+Owen%3BPettway%2C+Jackie&rft.aulast=Winton&rft.aufirst=Corey&rft.date=2010-04-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eleventh+Copper+Mountain+Conference+on+Iterative+Methods+%28CMCIM+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://grandmaster.colorado.edu/~copper/2010/program.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-08-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873131917; 14211-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements, with focus on the consideration of a new bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Key issues identified during scoping focused on traffic improvement benefits, hurricane clearance times, capital costs, potential impacts to communities and natural resources, and potential economic impacts. Comments also focused on tolling as a financing tool and on pedestrian and bicycle access or accommodations. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Existing Roads Alternative (ER2) would widen the existing US 158 and NC 12, but would not include a bridge. Four bridge alternatives would include a Mid-Currituck Bridge and different amounts of improvements to the existing US 158 and NC 12. The recommended alternative, MCB4, would include a new bridge facility across the Currituck Sound and minor improvements to existing NC 12 and US 158, but does not specify where the bridge would intersect NC 12. Two options for this connection include a northern alignment close to the Corolla Bay subdivision, known as C1, and a southern alignment south of the TimBuck II Shopping Center, known as C2. Two options are also identified for the location of the toll plaza and for the facility to be constructed across Maple Swamp. Option A includes a bridge across Maple Swamp and locating a toll plaza at a proposed interchange at US 158. Option B involves placing a new road through Maple Swamp with a toll plaza closer to Currituck Sound. For the five build alternatives, two hurricane evacuation options are under consideration. The first option is to add a third outbound lane to US 158 for evacuation use only. The second option is to reverse the existing center turn lane on US 158 to create a third outbound lane during an evacuation. When a third outbound lane is needed on the Wright Memorial Bridge or Knapp (Intracoastal Waterway) Bridge, one existing inbound lane would be reversed. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative ranges from $601 million to $816 million depending on alignment and options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would substantially improve traffic flow on US 158 and NC 12 and reduce travel time between the Currituck County mainland and the Currituck County Outer Banks. Evacuation times from the Outer Banks for residents and visitors who use US 158 and NC 168 as an evacuation route would also be substantially reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause increased turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound. New impervious surface of 80 to 87 acres would increase levels of bridge and highway runoff. Required relocations would include five to seven residences, three to six businesses, and 19 to 36 gravesites. Total wetland impacts would range from 34 to 41 acres. Bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100116, Draft EIS--237 pages, Technical Reports/Supplemental Materials, CD-ROM, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130275; 14211-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements, with focus on the consideration of a new bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Key issues identified during scoping focused on traffic improvement benefits, hurricane clearance times, capital costs, potential impacts to communities and natural resources, and potential economic impacts. Comments also focused on tolling as a financing tool and on pedestrian and bicycle access or accommodations. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Existing Roads Alternative (ER2) would widen the existing US 158 and NC 12, but would not include a bridge. Four bridge alternatives would include a Mid-Currituck Bridge and different amounts of improvements to the existing US 158 and NC 12. The recommended alternative, MCB4, would include a new bridge facility across the Currituck Sound and minor improvements to existing NC 12 and US 158, but does not specify where the bridge would intersect NC 12. Two options for this connection include a northern alignment close to the Corolla Bay subdivision, known as C1, and a southern alignment south of the TimBuck II Shopping Center, known as C2. Two options are also identified for the location of the toll plaza and for the facility to be constructed across Maple Swamp. Option A includes a bridge across Maple Swamp and locating a toll plaza at a proposed interchange at US 158. Option B involves placing a new road through Maple Swamp with a toll plaza closer to Currituck Sound. For the five build alternatives, two hurricane evacuation options are under consideration. The first option is to add a third outbound lane to US 158 for evacuation use only. The second option is to reverse the existing center turn lane on US 158 to create a third outbound lane during an evacuation. When a third outbound lane is needed on the Wright Memorial Bridge or Knapp (Intracoastal Waterway) Bridge, one existing inbound lane would be reversed. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative ranges from $601 million to $816 million depending on alignment and options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would substantially improve traffic flow on US 158 and NC 12 and reduce travel time between the Currituck County mainland and the Currituck County Outer Banks. Evacuation times from the Outer Banks for residents and visitors who use US 158 and NC 168 as an evacuation route would also be substantially reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause increased turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound. New impervious surface of 80 to 87 acres would increase levels of bridge and highway runoff. Required relocations would include five to seven residences, three to six businesses, and 19 to 36 gravesites. Total wetland impacts would range from 34 to 41 acres. Bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100116, Draft EIS--237 pages, Technical Reports/Supplemental Materials, CD-ROM, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873130267; 14211-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements, with focus on the consideration of a new bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Key issues identified during scoping focused on traffic improvement benefits, hurricane clearance times, capital costs, potential impacts to communities and natural resources, and potential economic impacts. Comments also focused on tolling as a financing tool and on pedestrian and bicycle access or accommodations. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Existing Roads Alternative (ER2) would widen the existing US 158 and NC 12, but would not include a bridge. Four bridge alternatives would include a Mid-Currituck Bridge and different amounts of improvements to the existing US 158 and NC 12. The recommended alternative, MCB4, would include a new bridge facility across the Currituck Sound and minor improvements to existing NC 12 and US 158, but does not specify where the bridge would intersect NC 12. Two options for this connection include a northern alignment close to the Corolla Bay subdivision, known as C1, and a southern alignment south of the TimBuck II Shopping Center, known as C2. Two options are also identified for the location of the toll plaza and for the facility to be constructed across Maple Swamp. Option A includes a bridge across Maple Swamp and locating a toll plaza at a proposed interchange at US 158. Option B involves placing a new road through Maple Swamp with a toll plaza closer to Currituck Sound. For the five build alternatives, two hurricane evacuation options are under consideration. The first option is to add a third outbound lane to US 158 for evacuation use only. The second option is to reverse the existing center turn lane on US 158 to create a third outbound lane during an evacuation. When a third outbound lane is needed on the Wright Memorial Bridge or Knapp (Intracoastal Waterway) Bridge, one existing inbound lane would be reversed. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative ranges from $601 million to $816 million depending on alignment and options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would substantially improve traffic flow on US 158 and NC 12 and reduce travel time between the Currituck County mainland and the Currituck County Outer Banks. Evacuation times from the Outer Banks for residents and visitors who use US 158 and NC 168 as an evacuation route would also be substantially reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause increased turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound. New impervious surface of 80 to 87 acres would increase levels of bridge and highway runoff. Required relocations would include five to seven residences, three to six businesses, and 19 to 36 gravesites. Total wetland impacts would range from 34 to 41 acres. Bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100116, Draft EIS--237 pages, Technical Reports/Supplemental Materials, CD-ROM, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127829; 14211-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements, with focus on the consideration of a new bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Key issues identified during scoping focused on traffic improvement benefits, hurricane clearance times, capital costs, potential impacts to communities and natural resources, and potential economic impacts. Comments also focused on tolling as a financing tool and on pedestrian and bicycle access or accommodations. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Existing Roads Alternative (ER2) would widen the existing US 158 and NC 12, but would not include a bridge. Four bridge alternatives would include a Mid-Currituck Bridge and different amounts of improvements to the existing US 158 and NC 12. The recommended alternative, MCB4, would include a new bridge facility across the Currituck Sound and minor improvements to existing NC 12 and US 158, but does not specify where the bridge would intersect NC 12. Two options for this connection include a northern alignment close to the Corolla Bay subdivision, known as C1, and a southern alignment south of the TimBuck II Shopping Center, known as C2. Two options are also identified for the location of the toll plaza and for the facility to be constructed across Maple Swamp. Option A includes a bridge across Maple Swamp and locating a toll plaza at a proposed interchange at US 158. Option B involves placing a new road through Maple Swamp with a toll plaza closer to Currituck Sound. For the five build alternatives, two hurricane evacuation options are under consideration. The first option is to add a third outbound lane to US 158 for evacuation use only. The second option is to reverse the existing center turn lane on US 158 to create a third outbound lane during an evacuation. When a third outbound lane is needed on the Wright Memorial Bridge or Knapp (Intracoastal Waterway) Bridge, one existing inbound lane would be reversed. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative ranges from $601 million to $816 million depending on alignment and options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would substantially improve traffic flow on US 158 and NC 12 and reduce travel time between the Currituck County mainland and the Currituck County Outer Banks. Evacuation times from the Outer Banks for residents and visitors who use US 158 and NC 168 as an evacuation route would also be substantially reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause increased turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound. New impervious surface of 80 to 87 acres would increase levels of bridge and highway runoff. Required relocations would include five to seven residences, three to six businesses, and 19 to 36 gravesites. Total wetland impacts would range from 34 to 41 acres. Bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100116, Draft EIS--237 pages, Technical Reports/Supplemental Materials, CD-ROM, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE PROPOSED BASELOAD POWER PLANT PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE PROPOSED BASELOAD POWER PLANT PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY. AN - 756827097; 14213-100118_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 278-megawatt (MW) net coal-fired electric generating plant and related facilities at the existing J.K. Smith Power Station in Clark County, Kentucky is proposed. East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), an electric generation and transmission cooperative based in Winchester, Kentucky, is a non-profit utility owned by its members and provides wholesale electricity to16 distribution cooperatives. EKPCs member systems, which provide electricity to 518,000 accounts and serve most of eastern Kentucky outside of urban areas, will not have the base load capacity to meet estimated needs beyond 2012. EKPC has applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit for the proposed plant. In 2002 and 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) completed an EIS and issued a record of decision for a 540-MW net coal-fired power plant at the same location and, based on similarities between the two projects, that EIS is being adopted as the basis for the Corps review of the current proposal. The earlier project was a demonstration project under the DOE Clean Coal Technology program that proposed to use integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology. However, Kentucky Pioneer was unable to obtain financing and DOE withdrew the project in 2005. Major changes from the previously approved DOE project include a smaller plant (278 MW rather than 540 MW), use of different coal-burning technology, the addition of an emergency water supply reservoir to avoid adverse impacts to the Kentucky River during low-flow conditions, on-site re-use of coal combustion byproduct (CCB), two on-site CCB landfills, and borrow areas to provide soil for the dam, reservoir, and landfills. EKPC proposes to construct a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal-fired plant that will use an approximately 50/50 blend of Kentucky coal and local coal waste for fuel. The proposed action would include construction and operation of the power plant and associated equipment, a new water intake structure at the Kentucky River, an emergency drought storage reservoir, relocation of Baesler Lane and Red River Road, two CCB beneficial re-use fill areas, two CCB storage landfills, several soil borrow areas, approximately one mile of new 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, and a backup substation. All parts of the proposal would be located within the boundaries of Smith Station, except the water intake in the Kentucky River. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental draft EIS assesses two technological alternatives, IGCC and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), along with a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide sufficient base load power to meet the base load electric power needs of EKPCs member distribution cooperatives in the year 2013. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil disturbance during construction could impact streams and other surface water bodies. Operational use of chemicals and fuels could result in spillage. Withdrawal of four million gallons of water per day, in addition to the water currently withdrawn for the Smith Station combustion turbine units, would impact the Kentucky River. The flow of Bull Run, which will be impounded to provide the emergency drought water supply, would be impacted. Parts of the 100-year floodplains of Bull Run and the Kentucky River would be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States would include 75,495 linear feet of stream and 4,783 acres of wetland over a period greater than 12 years. IGCC technology is not as well-developed as CFB and is estimated to be at least 20 percent higher in cost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs for the Kentucky Pioneer project, see 02-0013D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0135F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100118, 453 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coal KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emission Control KW - Floodplains KW - Landfills KW - Power Plants KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Kentucky KW - Kentucky 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/756827097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE PROPOSED BASELOAD POWER PLANT PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE PROPOSED BASELOAD POWER PLANT PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY. AN - 756827016; 14213-100118_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 278-megawatt (MW) net coal-fired electric generating plant and related facilities at the existing J.K. Smith Power Station in Clark County, Kentucky is proposed. East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), an electric generation and transmission cooperative based in Winchester, Kentucky, is a non-profit utility owned by its members and provides wholesale electricity to16 distribution cooperatives. EKPCs member systems, which provide electricity to 518,000 accounts and serve most of eastern Kentucky outside of urban areas, will not have the base load capacity to meet estimated needs beyond 2012. EKPC has applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit for the proposed plant. In 2002 and 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) completed an EIS and issued a record of decision for a 540-MW net coal-fired power plant at the same location and, based on similarities between the two projects, that EIS is being adopted as the basis for the Corps review of the current proposal. The earlier project was a demonstration project under the DOE Clean Coal Technology program that proposed to use integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology. However, Kentucky Pioneer was unable to obtain financing and DOE withdrew the project in 2005. Major changes from the previously approved DOE project include a smaller plant (278 MW rather than 540 MW), use of different coal-burning technology, the addition of an emergency water supply reservoir to avoid adverse impacts to the Kentucky River during low-flow conditions, on-site re-use of coal combustion byproduct (CCB), two on-site CCB landfills, and borrow areas to provide soil for the dam, reservoir, and landfills. EKPC proposes to construct a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal-fired plant that will use an approximately 50/50 blend of Kentucky coal and local coal waste for fuel. The proposed action would include construction and operation of the power plant and associated equipment, a new water intake structure at the Kentucky River, an emergency drought storage reservoir, relocation of Baesler Lane and Red River Road, two CCB beneficial re-use fill areas, two CCB storage landfills, several soil borrow areas, approximately one mile of new 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, and a backup substation. All parts of the proposal would be located within the boundaries of Smith Station, except the water intake in the Kentucky River. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental draft EIS assesses two technological alternatives, IGCC and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), along with a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide sufficient base load power to meet the base load electric power needs of EKPCs member distribution cooperatives in the year 2013. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil disturbance during construction could impact streams and other surface water bodies. Operational use of chemicals and fuels could result in spillage. Withdrawal of four million gallons of water per day, in addition to the water currently withdrawn for the Smith Station combustion turbine units, would impact the Kentucky River. The flow of Bull Run, which will be impounded to provide the emergency drought water supply, would be impacted. Parts of the 100-year floodplains of Bull Run and the Kentucky River would be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States would include 75,495 linear feet of stream and 4,783 acres of wetland over a period greater than 12 years. IGCC technology is not as well-developed as CFB and is estimated to be at least 20 percent higher in cost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs for the Kentucky Pioneer project, see 02-0013D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0135F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100118, 453 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coal KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emission Control KW - Floodplains KW - Landfills KW - Power Plants KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Kentucky KW - Kentucky 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/756827016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE PROPOSED BASELOAD POWER PLANT PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY. AN - 16385725; 14213 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 278-megawatt (MW) net coal-fired electric generating plant and related facilities at the existing J.K. Smith Power Station in Clark County, Kentucky is proposed. East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), an electric generation and transmission cooperative based in Winchester, Kentucky, is a non-profit utility owned by its members and provides wholesale electricity to16 distribution cooperatives. EKPCs member systems, which provide electricity to 518,000 accounts and serve most of eastern Kentucky outside of urban areas, will not have the base load capacity to meet estimated needs beyond 2012. EKPC has applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit for the proposed plant. In 2002 and 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) completed an EIS and issued a record of decision for a 540-MW net coal-fired power plant at the same location and, based on similarities between the two projects, that EIS is being adopted as the basis for the Corps review of the current proposal. The earlier project was a demonstration project under the DOE Clean Coal Technology program that proposed to use integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology. However, Kentucky Pioneer was unable to obtain financing and DOE withdrew the project in 2005. Major changes from the previously approved DOE project include a smaller plant (278 MW rather than 540 MW), use of different coal-burning technology, the addition of an emergency water supply reservoir to avoid adverse impacts to the Kentucky River during low-flow conditions, on-site re-use of coal combustion byproduct (CCB), two on-site CCB landfills, and borrow areas to provide soil for the dam, reservoir, and landfills. EKPC proposes to construct a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal-fired plant that will use an approximately 50/50 blend of Kentucky coal and local coal waste for fuel. The proposed action would include construction and operation of the power plant and associated equipment, a new water intake structure at the Kentucky River, an emergency drought storage reservoir, relocation of Baesler Lane and Red River Road, two CCB beneficial re-use fill areas, two CCB storage landfills, several soil borrow areas, approximately one mile of new 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, and a backup substation. All parts of the proposal would be located within the boundaries of Smith Station, except the water intake in the Kentucky River. In addition to the proposed action, this supplemental draft EIS assesses two technological alternatives, IGCC and natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), along with a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide sufficient base load power to meet the base load electric power needs of EKPCs member distribution cooperatives in the year 2013. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil disturbance during construction could impact streams and other surface water bodies. Operational use of chemicals and fuels could result in spillage. Withdrawal of four million gallons of water per day, in addition to the water currently withdrawn for the Smith Station combustion turbine units, would impact the Kentucky River. The flow of Bull Run, which will be impounded to provide the emergency drought water supply, would be impacted. Parts of the 100-year floodplains of Bull Run and the Kentucky River would be impacted. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States would include 75,495 linear feet of stream and 4,783 acres of wetland over a period greater than 12 years. IGCC technology is not as well-developed as CFB and is estimated to be at least 20 percent higher in cost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs for the Kentucky Pioneer project, see 02-0013D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0135F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100118, 453 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coal KW - Dams KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emission Control KW - Floodplains KW - Landfills KW - Power Plants KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Kentucky KW - Kentucky 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/16385725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=EAST+KENTUCKY+POWER+COOPERATIVE+PROPOSED+BASELOAD+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY, CURRITUCK AND DARE COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16383731; 14211 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements, with focus on the consideration of a new bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks, Currituck and Dare counties, North Carolina, are proposed. The project area encompasses US 158 between its intersection with NC 168 and its intersection with NC 12, and NC 12 from its intersection with US 158 north to where it terminates in the community of Corolla. Key issues identified during scoping focused on traffic improvement benefits, hurricane clearance times, capital costs, potential impacts to communities and natural resources, and potential economic impacts. Comments also focused on tolling as a financing tool and on pedestrian and bicycle access or accommodations. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Existing Roads Alternative (ER2) would widen the existing US 158 and NC 12, but would not include a bridge. Four bridge alternatives would include a Mid-Currituck Bridge and different amounts of improvements to the existing US 158 and NC 12. The recommended alternative, MCB4, would include a new bridge facility across the Currituck Sound and minor improvements to existing NC 12 and US 158, but does not specify where the bridge would intersect NC 12. Two options for this connection include a northern alignment close to the Corolla Bay subdivision, known as C1, and a southern alignment south of the TimBuck II Shopping Center, known as C2. Two options are also identified for the location of the toll plaza and for the facility to be constructed across Maple Swamp. Option A includes a bridge across Maple Swamp and locating a toll plaza at a proposed interchange at US 158. Option B involves placing a new road through Maple Swamp with a toll plaza closer to Currituck Sound. For the five build alternatives, two hurricane evacuation options are under consideration. The first option is to add a third outbound lane to US 158 for evacuation use only. The second option is to reverse the existing center turn lane on US 158 to create a third outbound lane during an evacuation. When a third outbound lane is needed on the Wright Memorial Bridge or Knapp (Intracoastal Waterway) Bridge, one existing inbound lane would be reversed. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative ranges from $601 million to $816 million depending on alignment and options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would substantially improve traffic flow on US 158 and NC 12 and reduce travel time between the Currituck County mainland and the Currituck County Outer Banks. Evacuation times from the Outer Banks for residents and visitors who use US 158 and NC 168 as an evacuation route would also be substantially reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause increased turbidity in waters of Currituck Sound. New impervious surface of 80 to 87 acres would increase levels of bridge and highway runoff. Required relocations would include five to seven residences, three to six businesses, and 19 to 36 gravesites. Total wetland impacts would range from 34 to 41 acres. Bridge features would affect views of Currituck Sound. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100116, Draft EIS--237 pages, Technical Reports/Supplemental Materials, CD-ROM, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MID-CURRITUCK+BRIDGE+STUDY%2C+CURRITUCK+AND+DARE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Practical focusing of surface-wave inversion to image levees in southern New Mexico AN - 928894496; 2012-028666 JF - Proceedings of SAGEEP AU - Ivanov, Julian AU - Miller, Richard D AU - Peterie, Shelby AU - Dunbar, Joseph B AU - Labson, Vic Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 97 EP - 102 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO VL - 2010 KW - United States KW - southern New Mexico KW - geophysical surveys KW - guided waves KW - engineering properties KW - geophysical methods KW - inverse problem KW - elastic waves KW - New Mexico KW - seismic methods KW - models KW - levees KW - surface waves KW - surveys KW - seismic waves KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928894496?accountid=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+SAGEEP&rft.atitle=Practical+focusing+of+surface-wave+inversion+to+image+levees+in+southern+New+Mexico&rft.au=Ivanov%2C+Julian%3BMiller%2C+Richard+D%3BPeterie%2C+Shelby%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B%3BLabson%2C+Vic&rft.aulast=Ivanov&rft.aufirst=Julian&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=2010&rft.issue=&rft.spage=97&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.issn=1554-8015&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/sageep/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 2010 EEGS annual meeting; 23rd SAGEEP (symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems); Building new markets for geophysics N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 5 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - elastic waves; engineering properties; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; guided waves; inverse problem; levees; models; New Mexico; seismic methods; seismic waves; southern New Mexico; surface waves; surveys; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Identification of the Polaris Fault using lidar and shallow geophysical methods AN - 928893713; 2012-028699 JF - Proceedings of SAGEEP AU - Hunter, Lewis E AU - Powers, Michael H AU - Burton, Bethany L AU - Labson, Vic Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 391 EP - 399 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO VL - 2010 KW - United States KW - laser methods KW - geophysical surveys KW - geologic hazards KW - geophysical methods KW - Truckee California KW - Nevada County California KW - California KW - foundations KW - Martis Creek Dam KW - detection KW - lidar methods KW - dams KW - natural hazards KW - surveys KW - Polaris Fault KW - faults KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928893713?accountid=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+SAGEEP&rft.atitle=Identification+of+the+Polaris+Fault+using+lidar+and+shallow+geophysical+methods&rft.au=Hunter%2C+Lewis+E%3BPowers%2C+Michael+H%3BBurton%2C+Bethany+L%3BLabson%2C+Vic&rft.aulast=Hunter&rft.aufirst=Lewis&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=2010&rft.issue=&rft.spage=391&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.issn=1554-8015&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/sageep/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 2010 EEGS annual meeting; 23rd SAGEEP (symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems); Building new markets for geophysics N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - California; dams; detection; faults; foundations; geologic hazards; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; laser methods; lidar methods; Martis Creek Dam; natural hazards; Nevada County California; Polaris Fault; surveys; Truckee California; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Technical overview of the Seismic Acoustic Impact Monitoring Assessment (SAIMA) system AN - 928891719; 2012-028779 JF - Proceedings of SAGEEP AU - VanDeMark, Thomas F AU - Conner, Ray AU - Johnson, Lars B AU - Bennett, Jay AU - Simms, Janet E AU - Yule, Don E AU - Labson, Vic Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 1065 EP - 1076 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO VL - 2010 KW - United States KW - geophysical surveys KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - unexploded ordnance KW - seismic methods KW - acoustical methods KW - detection KW - surveys KW - testing KW - Maryland KW - algorithms KW - military facilities KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928891719?accountid=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+SAGEEP&rft.atitle=Technical+overview+of+the+Seismic+Acoustic+Impact+Monitoring+Assessment+%28SAIMA%29+system&rft.au=VanDeMark%2C+Thomas+F%3BConner%2C+Ray%3BJohnson%2C+Lars+B%3BBennett%2C+Jay%3BSimms%2C+Janet+E%3BYule%2C+Don+E%3BLabson%2C+Vic&rft.aulast=VanDeMark&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=2010&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1065&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.issn=1554-8015&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/sageep/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 2010 EEGS annual meeting; 23rd SAGEEP (symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems); Building new markets for geophysics N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustical methods; algorithms; data processing; detection; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Maryland; military facilities; seismic methods; surveys; testing; unexploded ordnance; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The disappearance of the Civil War cannon Whistling Dick AN - 762681690; 2010-092703 AB - Whistling Dick was a banded and rifled 18-pound Confederate siege and garrison cannon that was originally casted as a Model 1839 smoothbore. It earned it name by a peculiar whistling sound made by projectiles fired from the gun. The cannon was an integral part of the Confederate defenses protecting Vicksburg and the Mississippi River and during the 1863 siege of Vicksburg and is credited with sinking the Union gunboat Cincinnati. The cannon believed to be Whistling Dick fell into Union hands with the July 4 (super th) surrender of Vicksburg and it was soon shipped to trophy point at the Unites States Military Academy West Point, New York. During the ensuing decades, questions about the authenticity of the cannon were raised; chief among them was a story as told by one of the former gun-crew that surfaced in 1900. He claimed that on the night of July 3 (super rd) 1863 a detail of 14 confederate soldiers moved the cannon from it firing position on Wymans Hill to the old Vicksburg waterfront. There it was transferred to a coal barge, paddled into the main channel of the Mississippi River and dumped overboard. Finally, some 100 years later, it was discovered that the cannon shipped to West Point was not Whistling Dick, but actually a similar cannon known as the Widow Blakely. Geological analysis of available this and other historic information indicates two possible locations for Whistling Dick, Centennial Lake or a loess cave on Wymans Hill. In 1863 the Mississippi River did flow in front of Vicksburg, but in 1876 a cutoff occurred (Centennial Cutoff) isolating Vicksburg from the river and forming a shallow oxbow lake, located just west of Vicksburg, Ms. Whistling Dick weighted about 2.5 tones and while the logistics of movement might have been difficult, a river location is plausible. Alternately, burial of the cannon in a loess cave on or near Wymans Hill is another possibility. Although numerous loess caves were known to exist in this area, there is no documentation either substantiated or unsubstantiated indicating such a fate for the cannon. In conclusion, neither hypothesis adequately explains the disappearance of Whistling Dick. However, given the size of the cannon, advanced geophysical techniques may be able to locate a magnetic or gravity anomaly produced by the cannon. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Eckert, Casey J AU - Bufkin, Amber AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 88 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Centennial Lake KW - archaeology KW - Civil War KW - clastic sediments KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - burial KW - artifacts KW - Wymans Hill KW - tunnels KW - sediments KW - loess KW - Mississippi River KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762681690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=The+disappearance+of+the+Civil+War+cannon+Whistling+Dick&rft.au=Harrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BEckert%2C+Casey+J%3BBufkin%2C+Amber%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Harrelson&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=88&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 44th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 44th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Civil War; archaeology; artifacts; burial; Centennial Lake; clastic sediments; loess; Mississippi; Mississippi River; sediments; tunnels; United States; Warren County Mississippi; Wymans Hill ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Loess caves and the siege of Vicksburg AN - 762674655; 2010-092702 AB - The loess caves of Vicksburg became famous during the forty-six day Siege of Vicksburg of the American Civil War. They were not true caves because none were naturally formed subterranean openings. Their uniqueness lies in the fact that, many vicksburgers dug caves into the loess hillsides creating semi-bombproof shelters. Because of loess' ability to hold a vertical cut, the material was easily excavated into bombardment shelters with walls that could stand for many years without slumping. Generally, the caves had more than one entrance to allow air ventilation and to provide alternate escape routes and contemporary accounts reported that the caves varied in size from small family spaces to those large enough to accommodate several hundred people. However, even the loess caves could not take a direct hit, and it was reported that some caves did collapse from artillery bombardments. Mary Webster Loughborough a lifelong resident of Vicksburg describes her life in these caves during the siege and recounts how many persons tried to live their lives normally in loess caves dug into the hillsides. Because of loess' unique physical properties, it is still a form of dwelling that is used today in many countries (e.g. Shanxi, Shaanxi and Gansu Provinces, China). Since prehistoric times, people in the Shanxi, Province of China have lived in loess caves carved into the local hillsides. It is estimated that world-wide over forty million people still reside in some form loess shelters. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Bufkin, Amber AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 88 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Civil War KW - military geology KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - clastic sediments KW - tunnels KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - sediments KW - Mississippi KW - loess KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762674655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Loess+caves+and+the+siege+of+Vicksburg&rft.au=Bufkin%2C+Amber%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bufkin&rft.aufirst=Amber&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=88&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 44th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 44th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Civil War; clastic sediments; loess; military geology; Mississippi; sediments; tunnels; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ages of alluvial terrace deposits and dynamics of the Cheyenne and Belle Fourche Rivers, South Dakota AN - 756291202; 2010-082906 AB - The Water Resource Development Act of 1999 (amended in 2000) mandated a study of contaminated sediments within the Cheyenne River Basin, which is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Initial work for this study includes the measurement of concentrations of metals in "uncontaminated" sediment. Sites were identified as uncontaminated if no evidence of negative effects by anthropogenic activity existed and their elevations are well above historical maximum flood levels. Four terraces sites on the Cheyenne River were selected for the study, at 108, 117, 183, and 199 river-kilometers upstream from the confluence with the Missouri River. Terrace elevations at these sites were 85, 85, 67, and 67 meters above the channel, respectively. The chronology of terraces on the lower Cheyenne River is largely unresolved, but previous work assigned the name Farmingdale to terraces along Rapid Creek with ages as young as Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene. On Rapid Creek, the Farmingdale terraces rise in the downstream direction over at distance of 22 kilometers from the level of the active floodplain to approximately 55 meters above the channel, at the confluence with the Cheyenne River. This confluence is 226 river-kilometers upstream from the Missouri River. Previous studies of terrace deposits on the lower Cheyenne River include optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates that range from 8.3 thousand years ago (ka) to 14.1 ka on a terrace approximately 75 meters above the channel at 16 river-kilometers upstream from the Missouri River confluence. Ages of terrace deposits at the current sample sites were obtained to further evaluate the Late Pleistocene and Holocene dynamics of the Cheyenne River system. Terrace deposits at 183 river-kilometers, at 67 meters above the channel, had an age of 6.1 ka (2 OSL samples). Terrace deposits at 199 river-kilometers, also at 67 meters, had ages of 10.7 to 16.5 ka (3 OSL samples) and 27.8 to 32.0 ka (2 radiocarbon samples). Dates at other sites are forthcoming. These data indicate incision rates on the order of 0.2 to 1.1 meters per century. Causes of these high incision rates remain unclear but may include climate change, regional uplift, stream capture events, removal of glacial dams, and glacial isostatic rebound. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Stamm, John F AU - Geibel, Nicholas M AU - Mahan, Shannon A AU - Zaprowski, Brent J AU - Azzolini, David C AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 18 EP - 18, 39 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - relative age KW - isotopes KW - erosion rates KW - terraces KW - Holocene KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - radioactive isotopes KW - optically stimulated luminescence KW - dates KW - carbon KW - Belle Fourche River KW - sediments KW - absolute age KW - Cheyenne River KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - Wyoming KW - fluvial features KW - Pleistocene KW - alluvium KW - C-14 KW - South Dakota KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 03:Geochronology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756291202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Ages+of+alluvial+terrace+deposits+and+dynamics+of+the+Cheyenne+and+Belle+Fourche+Rivers%2C+South+Dakota&rft.au=Stamm%2C+John+F%3BGeibel%2C+Nicholas+M%3BMahan%2C+Shannon+A%3BZaprowski%2C+Brent+J%3BAzzolini%2C+David+C%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Stamm&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=18&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 62nd annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - SuppNotes - Abstract 17-2 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; alluvium; Belle Fourche River; C-14; carbon; Cenozoic; Cheyenne River; clastic sediments; dates; erosion rates; fluvial features; Holocene; isotopes; optically stimulated luminescence; Pleistocene; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; relative age; sediments; South Dakota; terraces; United States; upper Pleistocene; Wyoming ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Concentrations of selected metals in uncontaminated alluvial deposits of the Cheyenne and Belle Fourche Rivers, South Dakota AN - 756290952; 2010-082890 AB - Sediments contaminated with various metals from mining activities in the Black Hills and potentially other anthropogenic sources have been deposited throughout downstream reaches of the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne Rivers in western South Dakota. The Water Resource Development Act of 1999 (amended in 2000) mandated a study of contaminated sediments within the Cheyenne River Basin, which is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Herein, we summarize the first part of this study, which is to determine the concentrations of selected metals in alluvial sediment deposited prior to the effects of mining and other anthropogenic activities that may have contributed to contamination in the basin. Such data provide estimates of concentrations of metals in "uncontaminated" sediment. Of particular interest are the concentrations of arsenic and mercury in sediment. Five sites identified as uncontaminated were selected for sampling: four along the Cheyenne River and one along the Belle Fourche River. Samples were collected from terraces that were well above historical maximum flood levels at each of these sites. Samples were also collected from the active channel and floodplain at two sites on the Cheyenne River above its confluence with the Belle Fourche River. The chronology of terraces on the lower Cheyenne River is largely unresolved, but previous work indicates that terraces as much as 75 meters above the channel may be as young as late Pleistocene to early Holocene. Ages of 10.7 thousand years ago (ka) to 16.5 ka, and 6.1 ka were obtained from Cheyenne River terraces at approximately 199 and 183 river kilometers upstream from the confluence with the Missouri River, respectively. Both terraces are approximately 67 meters above the channel. Other dates are forthcoming from terraces at similar heights above the channel. Arsenic concentrations from a total of 88 samples from terrace and channel sites had a geometric mean of 7.5 parts per million (ppm). The maximum arsenic concentration of the sample population was 34 ppm. An arsenic concentration of 35.6 ppm is three standard deviations greater than the geometric mean for arsenic concentrations from the 88 samples. In most samples, mercury was undetected or less than laboratory analytical reporting limits. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Stamm, John F AU - Geibel, Nicholas M AU - Mahan, Shannon A AU - Azzolini, David C AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 6 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - western South Dakota KW - United States KW - concentration KW - toxic materials KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - background level KW - arsenic KW - Holocene KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - metals KW - Belle Fourche River KW - sediments KW - Pleistocene KW - Cheyenne River KW - alluvium KW - South Dakota KW - mercury KW - 02C:Geochemistry of rocks, soils, and sediments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756290952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Concentrations+of+selected+metals+in+uncontaminated+alluvial+deposits+of+the+Cheyenne+and+Belle+Fourche+Rivers%2C+South+Dakota&rft.au=Stamm%2C+John+F%3BGeibel%2C+Nicholas+M%3BMahan%2C+Shannon+A%3BAzzolini%2C+David+C%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Stamm&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 62nd annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - SuppNotes - Abstract 15-1 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alluvium; arsenic; background level; Belle Fourche River; Cenozoic; Cheyenne River; clastic sediments; concentration; Holocene; mercury; metals; Pleistocene; Quaternary; sediments; South Dakota; toxic materials; United States; upper Pleistocene; western South Dakota ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Source signature and propagation path effects from topography on local seismic-acoustic (infrasound) data AN - 753851716; 2010-070013 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - McKenna, Mihan H AU - Lester, Alanna P AU - McKenna, Jason R AU - Anderson, Thomas S AU - Kopenhoeffer, Kyle AU - Gibson, R AU - McComas, Sarah AU - Moran, Seth AU - Beeler, Nick AU - Wong, Ivan AU - Weldon, Ray AU - McConnell, Vicki AU - Trehu, Anne Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 327 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 81 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - topography KW - propagation KW - elastic waves KW - Alaska KW - seismic waves KW - seismic sources KW - information management KW - arrays KW - acoustical waves KW - data management KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/753851716?accountid=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=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Source+signature+and+propagation+path+effects+from+topography+on+local+seismic-acoustic+%28infrasound%29+data&rft.au=McKenna%2C+Mihan+H%3BLester%2C+Alanna+P%3BMcKenna%2C+Jason+R%3BAnderson%2C+Thomas+S%3BKopenhoeffer%2C+Kyle%3BGibson%2C+R%3BMcComas%2C+Sarah%3BMoran%2C+Seth%3BBeeler%2C+Nick%3BWong%2C+Ivan%3BWeldon%2C+Ray%3BMcConnell%2C+Vicki%3BTrehu%2C+Anne&rft.aulast=McKenna&rft.aufirst=Mihan&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=327&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Seismological Society of America 2010 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustical waves; Alaska; arrays; data management; elastic waves; information management; propagation; seismic sources; seismic waves; topography; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Coastal progradation and sediment partitioning in the Holocene Waipaoa sedimentary system, New Zealand AN - 742905521; 2010-039500 AB - Over the late Holocene highstand, the shoreline at Poverty Bay, NZ migrated 12 km seaward, fed by sediment from the Waipaoa river. Paleo-shorelines indicate steadily decelerating progradation, possibly signaling changes in forcing on the Waipaoa Sedimentary System. To isolate the cause of this progradation slowdown we reconstruct late Holocene tectonics and stratigraphy over the Waipaoa coastal plain and nearshore from 7 ka-present. We find that decreasing rates of sediment storage by coastal progradation were driven by increasing tectonic storage in the steadily subsiding but rapidly growing coastal plain, such that net terrestrial storage remained constant at approximately 0.8 Mt/yr. Hence changes in shoreline migration were due to autogenic increases in accommodation rather than allogenic changes in forcing. Furthermore, while the Waipaoa sediment load is primarily mud, reconstructions suggest that progradation was largely controlled by the supply of coarse-grained sediment. Our results suggest that in coastal systems such as the Waipaoa, where progradation is confined and wave energy is high, net accumulation of muds occurs only behind the prograding sandy shoreface, which shelters them from wave attack. Accounting for mud storage in the Waipaoa coastal plain and Poverty Bay suggests that export of muddy sediment to the Waipaoa shelf remained roughly constant at approximately 2.0 Mt/yr from 7 ka until the onset of anthropogenic deforestation in the 19th century. JF - Marine Geology AU - Wolinsky, Matthew A AU - Swenson, J B AU - Litchfield, Nicola AU - McNinch, J E A2 - Carter, Lionel A2 - Orpin, Alan R. A2 - Kuehl, Steven A. Y1 - 2010/04// PY - 2010 DA - April 2010 SP - 94 EP - 107 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 270 IS - 1-4 SN - 0025-3227, 0025-3227 KW - lithostratigraphy KW - Southwest Pacific KW - uplifts KW - regression KW - northeastern New Zealand KW - subsidence KW - Holocene KW - coastal plains KW - North Island KW - West Pacific KW - Cenozoic KW - transgression KW - Waipaoa River basin KW - Poverty Bay KW - mass balance KW - sediments KW - progradation KW - Quaternary KW - Australasia KW - grain size KW - sedimentation KW - paleobathymetry KW - rates KW - South Pacific KW - models KW - sea-level changes KW - Pacific Ocean KW - reconstruction KW - coastal sedimentation KW - New Zealand KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742905521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Geology&rft.atitle=Coastal+progradation+and+sediment+partitioning+in+the+Holocene+Waipaoa+sedimentary+system%2C+New+Zealand&rft.au=Wolinsky%2C+Matthew+A%3BSwenson%2C+J+B%3BLitchfield%2C+Nicola%3BMcNinch%2C+J+E&rft.aulast=Wolinsky&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=270&rft.issue=1-4&rft.spage=94&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Geology&rft.issn=00253227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.margeo.2009.10.021 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00253227 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 53 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - MAGEA6 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Australasia; Cenozoic; coastal plains; coastal sedimentation; grain size; Holocene; lithostratigraphy; mass balance; models; New Zealand; North Island; northeastern New Zealand; Pacific Ocean; paleobathymetry; Poverty Bay; progradation; Quaternary; rates; reconstruction; regression; sea-level changes; sedimentation; sediments; South Pacific; Southwest Pacific; subsidence; transgression; uplifts; Waipaoa River basin; West Pacific DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2009.10.021 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131885; 14208-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131882; 14208-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131878; 14208-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131873; 14208-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131866; 14208-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131861; 14208-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873131844; 14208-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873131844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873130233; 14208-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/873130233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 95 GARWOOD TO SAGLE, KOOTENAI AND BONNER COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 15224413; 14208 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 35.1-mile segment of US 95 between Garwood (Mile Post 438.24) and Sagle (Mile Post 469.75) in Kootenai and Bonner counties, Idaho is proposed. The segment has experienced a 50 percent increase in traffic volume since 1990 and it is anticipated that local and through traffic will continue to increase at the same rate through the design year of 2030. Many public and private access points along the highway limit the facility's capacity and contribute to increased vehicle crashes. Accident statistics for the highway demonstrate that this section of US 95 has a crash severity rate and a fatality rate greater than the statewide average for similar highways. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives cover six segments that make up the corridor. The Yellow Alternative would reconstruct the freeway along the existing alignment, with three options in Sagle with respect to interchange location and frontage road locations. The Blue Alternative would provide a freeway along the existing alignment with short segments along new alignment. The Modified Brown Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a facility similar to the Blue or Yellow alternative in each area, but offering refinements. Regardless of the action alternative selected, the facility would provide two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 50-foot median along the route, excepting in wetland areas, where a narrower median would be used to prevent excessive wetland losses. In the Cocolalla, Westmond, and Sagle areas, the Brown and Yellow alternatives would provide a 22-foot median with a concrete barrier. A bicycle/pedestrian path would be provided along the highway. All action alternatives would also include frontage roads. Access would be confined to interchanges. Rights-of-way acquisition cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $44 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An improved US 95 would accommodate present and future traffic demand improve the safety of the highway for all users. Confining access to interchanges would ensure safe, efficient movement of vehicles along the facility. At-grade railroad crossings would be replaced by bridges, eliminating railroad/automobile conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 69 residences, 41 businesses, two sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 721 acres of farmland, 75 acres of riparian habitat, and 632 acres of forested land, 58.7 acres of floodplain, and 91.7 acres of wetlands. All action alternatives would affect Cocolalla Creek. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 48 residences and two businesses. 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 07-0125D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100113, 619 pages and maps, Technical Reports; CD-ROM, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-06-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/15224413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=US+95+GARWOOD+TO+SAGLE%2C+KOOTENAI+AND+BONNER+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Screening Watershed Health Using Spatial Datasets T2 - 2010 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2010) AN - 742812721; 5693439 JF - 2010 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2010) AU - Carroll, Rebecca AU - Jenicek, Elisabeth Y1 - 2010/03/29/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Mar 29 KW - Watersheds KW - Screening KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742812721?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2010%29&rft.atitle=Screening+Watershed+Health+Using+Spatial+Datasets&rft.au=Carroll%2C+Rebecca%3BJenicek%2C+Elisabeth&rft.aulast=Carroll&rft.aufirst=Rebecca&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/doc/AWRA_Proof_FL_FP.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-08-14 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Methodology for Forecasting Local and Regional Water Sustainability T2 - 2010 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2010) AN - 742803353; 5693438 JF - 2010 American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference (AWRA 2010) AU - Carroll, Rebecca AU - Jenicek, Elisabeth AU - Myers, Natalie AU - Miller, Kevin AU - Hessel, MeLena AU - Holmes, Ryan AU - Fournier, Donald Y1 - 2010/03/29/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Mar 29 KW - Sustainability KW - Prediction KW - Resource management KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742803353?accountid=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+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2010%29&rft.atitle=A+Methodology+for+Forecasting+Local+and+Regional+Water+Sustainability&rft.au=Carroll%2C+Rebecca%3BJenicek%2C+Elisabeth%3BMyers%2C+Natalie%3BMiller%2C+Kevin%3BHessel%2C+MeLena%3BHolmes%2C+Ryan%3BFournier%2C+Donald&rft.aulast=Carroll&rft.aufirst=Rebecca&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+American+Water+Resources+Association+Spring+Specialty+Conference+%28AWRA+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.awra.org/meetings/Florida2010/doc/AWRA_Proof_FL_FP.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-08-14 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756827036; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756827036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756827031; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756827031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756826942; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756826942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756826836; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756826836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756826559; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756826559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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 6] T2 - FORT STEWART TRAINING RANGE AND GARRISON SUPPORT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, LIBERTY, LONG, BRYAN, EVANS, AND TATTNALL COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 756826460; 14200-100105_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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/756826460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 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. AN - 16373542; 14200 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. The projects analyzed in this document are divided into two categories: range construction and improvement projects and Garrison support projects. The proposed action would support the Sky Warrior Units Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System, scheduled to arrive at Fort Stewart in 2011, which will not have adequate facilities when it arrives. Fort Stewart was also scheduled to receive the 10th Engineer Battalion, however, the move of the unit was cancelled. A similar-sized unit will likely be moved to Fort Stewart in the near future and the facilities to support an engineer battalion are also included in the analysis. Three Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, and Alternative C would utilize different sites foe the proposed facilities. Twelve ranges are analyzed: 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 one company operations facility with covered hardstand, a headquarters building with classrooms, and organizational vehicle and 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. There is a potential for moderate adverse cumulative effects to streams, stormwater, and floodplains as a result of either facility siting alternative. Total impact to wetlands for all the projects under Alternative B would be 190.21 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100105, Draft EIS--431 pages, Appendices--1,140 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic 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/16373542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-26&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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). AN - 756827096; 14194-100098_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Safety and capacity improvements to State Route (SR) 502 between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Battle Ground, north Clark County, Washington are proposed. SR 502 is one of two primary routes providing access to the City of Battle Ground and to the regional highway system (I-5) and the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The segment proposed for improvement extends five miles between NE 15th Avenue and NE 102nd Avenue. The project corridor is a heavily traveled, two-lane roadway with narrow shoulders and segments which have been designated as high accident corridors. Between 1990 and 2007, Clark County's population grew 74 percent and traffic volumes are projected to nearly triple by the year 2033 compared to 2005 traffic volumes. The range of initial alternatives developed for improving safety and mobility on SR 502 included five on-corridor alternatives, two off-corridor alternatives, and two transportation system management options. The best elements of the on-corridor alternatives and the transportation management alternatives were combined in a hybrid approach. The Build Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. The Build Alternative would widen the roadway to provide two lanes in each direction with a median treatment to separate westbound and eastbound traffic. New signals and turn pockets would be added at the intersections at NE 29th Avenue, NE 50th Avenue, NE 92nd Avenue, and the existing signal at NE 72nd Avenue would be improved. Other intersections would be restricted to right-turns only, with u-turns allowed at the four signalized intersections. Paved shoulders would be constructed along both sides of SR 502 for the entire corridor, while sidewalks would be provided in the rural commercially zoned area near Dollars Corner. Construction under the Build Alternative is expected to begin in 2012 and last three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternative would improve mobility and safety along the SR 502 corridor and improve regional connectivity between Battle Ground and I-5. Travel speeds under the Build Alternative would average in excess of 28 miles per hour through 2033. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Build Alternative would create 28 acres of new impervious surfaces and would convert 54 to 60 acres of grassland, scrub, forest and riparian land to roadway or related facilities. Two to three acres of potential fish habitat for endangered species would be disturbed and nine to 14 acres of wetlands would be filled. Corridor improvements would result in the conversion of approximately 12 to 16 acres of prime farmland to roadway and storm water facilities, displacement of 22 to 28 businesses and 25 to 35 residences, adverse effects on two historically significant properties, and disturbance of four sites know to contain hazardous materials (primarily petroleum, solvents and metals). LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0303D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100098, Final EIS--346 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-09-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.title=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). AN - 756827081; 14194-100098_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Safety and capacity improvements to State Route (SR) 502 between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Battle Ground, north Clark County, Washington are proposed. SR 502 is one of two primary routes providing access to the City of Battle Ground and to the regional highway system (I-5) and the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The segment proposed for improvement extends five miles between NE 15th Avenue and NE 102nd Avenue. The project corridor is a heavily traveled, two-lane roadway with narrow shoulders and segments which have been designated as high accident corridors. Between 1990 and 2007, Clark County's population grew 74 percent and traffic volumes are projected to nearly triple by the year 2033 compared to 2005 traffic volumes. The range of initial alternatives developed for improving safety and mobility on SR 502 included five on-corridor alternatives, two off-corridor alternatives, and two transportation system management options. The best elements of the on-corridor alternatives and the transportation management alternatives were combined in a hybrid approach. The Build Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. The Build Alternative would widen the roadway to provide two lanes in each direction with a median treatment to separate westbound and eastbound traffic. New signals and turn pockets would be added at the intersections at NE 29th Avenue, NE 50th Avenue, NE 92nd Avenue, and the existing signal at NE 72nd Avenue would be improved. Other intersections would be restricted to right-turns only, with u-turns allowed at the four signalized intersections. Paved shoulders would be constructed along both sides of SR 502 for the entire corridor, while sidewalks would be provided in the rural commercially zoned area near Dollars Corner. Construction under the Build Alternative is expected to begin in 2012 and last three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternative would improve mobility and safety along the SR 502 corridor and improve regional connectivity between Battle Ground and I-5. Travel speeds under the Build Alternative would average in excess of 28 miles per hour through 2033. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Build Alternative would create 28 acres of new impervious surfaces and would convert 54 to 60 acres of grassland, scrub, forest and riparian land to roadway or related facilities. Two to three acres of potential fish habitat for endangered species would be disturbed and nine to 14 acres of wetlands would be filled. Corridor improvements would result in the conversion of approximately 12 to 16 acres of prime farmland to roadway and storm water facilities, displacement of 22 to 28 businesses and 25 to 35 residences, adverse effects on two historically significant properties, and disturbance of four sites know to contain hazardous materials (primarily petroleum, solvents and metals). LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0303D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100098, Final EIS--346 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-09-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.title=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). AN - 756827074; 14194-100098_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Safety and capacity improvements to State Route (SR) 502 between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Battle Ground, north Clark County, Washington are proposed. SR 502 is one of two primary routes providing access to the City of Battle Ground and to the regional highway system (I-5) and the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The segment proposed for improvement extends five miles between NE 15th Avenue and NE 102nd Avenue. The project corridor is a heavily traveled, two-lane roadway with narrow shoulders and segments which have been designated as high accident corridors. Between 1990 and 2007, Clark County's population grew 74 percent and traffic volumes are projected to nearly triple by the year 2033 compared to 2005 traffic volumes. The range of initial alternatives developed for improving safety and mobility on SR 502 included five on-corridor alternatives, two off-corridor alternatives, and two transportation system management options. The best elements of the on-corridor alternatives and the transportation management alternatives were combined in a hybrid approach. The Build Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. The Build Alternative would widen the roadway to provide two lanes in each direction with a median treatment to separate westbound and eastbound traffic. New signals and turn pockets would be added at the intersections at NE 29th Avenue, NE 50th Avenue, NE 92nd Avenue, and the existing signal at NE 72nd Avenue would be improved. Other intersections would be restricted to right-turns only, with u-turns allowed at the four signalized intersections. Paved shoulders would be constructed along both sides of SR 502 for the entire corridor, while sidewalks would be provided in the rural commercially zoned area near Dollars Corner. Construction under the Build Alternative is expected to begin in 2012 and last three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternative would improve mobility and safety along the SR 502 corridor and improve regional connectivity between Battle Ground and I-5. Travel speeds under the Build Alternative would average in excess of 28 miles per hour through 2033. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Build Alternative would create 28 acres of new impervious surfaces and would convert 54 to 60 acres of grassland, scrub, forest and riparian land to roadway or related facilities. Two to three acres of potential fish habitat for endangered species would be disturbed and nine to 14 acres of wetlands would be filled. Corridor improvements would result in the conversion of approximately 12 to 16 acres of prime farmland to roadway and storm water facilities, displacement of 22 to 28 businesses and 25 to 35 residences, adverse effects on two historically significant properties, and disturbance of four sites know to contain hazardous materials (primarily petroleum, solvents and metals). LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0303D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100098, Final EIS--346 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-09-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/756827074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.title=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 502 CORRIDOR WIDENING, CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SR 502 / INTERSTATE 5 TO BATTLE GROUND - ADD LANES). AN - 16384422; 14194 AB - PURPOSE: Safety and capacity improvements to State Route (SR) 502 between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Battle Ground, north Clark County, Washington are proposed. SR 502 is one of two primary routes providing access to the City of Battle Ground and to the regional highway system (I-5) and the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The segment proposed for improvement extends five miles between NE 15th Avenue and NE 102nd Avenue. The project corridor is a heavily traveled, two-lane roadway with narrow shoulders and segments which have been designated as high accident corridors. Between 1990 and 2007, Clark County's population grew 74 percent and traffic volumes are projected to nearly triple by the year 2033 compared to 2005 traffic volumes. The range of initial alternatives developed for improving safety and mobility on SR 502 included five on-corridor alternatives, two off-corridor alternatives, and two transportation system management options. The best elements of the on-corridor alternatives and the transportation management alternatives were combined in a hybrid approach. The Build Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. The Build Alternative would widen the roadway to provide two lanes in each direction with a median treatment to separate westbound and eastbound traffic. New signals and turn pockets would be added at the intersections at NE 29th Avenue, NE 50th Avenue, NE 92nd Avenue, and the existing signal at NE 72nd Avenue would be improved. Other intersections would be restricted to right-turns only, with u-turns allowed at the four signalized intersections. Paved shoulders would be constructed along both sides of SR 502 for the entire corridor, while sidewalks would be provided in the rural commercially zoned area near Dollars Corner. Construction under the Build Alternative is expected to begin in 2012 and last three years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Build Alternative would improve mobility and safety along the SR 502 corridor and improve regional connectivity between Battle Ground and I-5. Travel speeds under the Build Alternative would average in excess of 28 miles per hour through 2033. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Build Alternative would create 28 acres of new impervious surfaces and would convert 54 to 60 acres of grassland, scrub, forest and riparian land to roadway or related facilities. Two to three acres of potential fish habitat for endangered species would be disturbed and nine to 14 acres of wetlands would be filled. Corridor improvements would result in the conversion of approximately 12 to 16 acres of prime farmland to roadway and storm water facilities, displacement of 22 to 28 businesses and 25 to 35 residences, adverse effects on two historically significant properties, and disturbance of four sites know to contain hazardous materials (primarily petroleum, solvents and metals). LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0303D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100098, Final EIS--346 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 23, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-09-01-F KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/16384422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.title=SR+502+CORRIDOR+WIDENING%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SR+502+%2F+INTERSTATE+5+TO+BATTLE+GROUND+-+ADD+LANES%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756827106; 14246-100093_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is approximately 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two boiling water reactor steam electric systems using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design which is rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. The reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turns a generator creating electricity. Cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure located on the baffle dike; it would then circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4 after which it would return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River to maintain water quality in the MCR. Water returned to the Colorado River enters the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank of the river two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. However, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink in the event of an emergency; instead, Units 3 and 4 would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers is returned to the MCR. To support four unit operations, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include stormwater runoff during the building phase, habitat loss and wildlife displacement from dredging and barge slip expansion, and noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise, increased surface water use from the Colorado River, increased sediment load in stormwater, and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100093, 616 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827055; 14248-100095_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and realignment of 11 miles of State Highway (SH) 15 from US 45 in the city of New London to just west of the town of Greenville and SH 76 in Outagamie County, Wisconsin are proposed. SH 15 is a rural highway transitioning to a commuter route between New London and Appleton in northeastern Wisconsin. The village of Hortonville, which lies close to the center for the study corridor, has been experiencing increased traffic congestion for several years. As development continues in the region, traffic volumes will continue to increase. The existing two-lane roadway would fail to meet the need to provide for a smooth, safe flow of traffic, particularly within the village limits of Hortonville. Safety concerns include restricted sign distances at several intersections, limited passing opportunities, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. The proposed action would expand SH 15 to a four-lane facility, with the option for a bypass of Hortonville. The corridor has been divided into two sections. The western section begins at the intersection of US 45 and SH 15 in New London and continues 3.4 miles southeastward to the intersection with County T and Givens Road. The eastern section continues 7.3 miles southeastward from the County T/Givens Road intersection through Hortonville to a point east of Julius Road in Greenville. Four eastern section alternatives and two western section options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative includes Option A for the western section and Alternative 3 for the eastern section and would follow the existing alignment west and east of Hortonville and a bypass alignment around the north side of Hortonville. Costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $73.2 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded facility would provide for an efficient transportation system for the SH 15 corridor, allowing it to accommodate present and long-term traffic needs while minimizing disturbance to the corridor environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 259 acres including 33 acres of wetlands, 175 acres of farmland, 39 acres of upland habitat, and 45 acres of developed and undeveloped urban land. Displacements would include 22 residences and six commercial units. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 44 sensitive receptor sites. Construction would require special provisions to deal with 28 hazardous waste sites. The preferred alternative would affect the main channel of Black Otter Creeek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0132D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100095, Final EIS--434 pages and maps, Appendices--208 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-2006-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin 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/756827055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826986; 14248-100095_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and realignment of 11 miles of State Highway (SH) 15 from US 45 in the city of New London to just west of the town of Greenville and SH 76 in Outagamie County, Wisconsin are proposed. SH 15 is a rural highway transitioning to a commuter route between New London and Appleton in northeastern Wisconsin. The village of Hortonville, which lies close to the center for the study corridor, has been experiencing increased traffic congestion for several years. As development continues in the region, traffic volumes will continue to increase. The existing two-lane roadway would fail to meet the need to provide for a smooth, safe flow of traffic, particularly within the village limits of Hortonville. Safety concerns include restricted sign distances at several intersections, limited passing opportunities, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. The proposed action would expand SH 15 to a four-lane facility, with the option for a bypass of Hortonville. The corridor has been divided into two sections. The western section begins at the intersection of US 45 and SH 15 in New London and continues 3.4 miles southeastward to the intersection with County T and Givens Road. The eastern section continues 7.3 miles southeastward from the County T/Givens Road intersection through Hortonville to a point east of Julius Road in Greenville. Four eastern section alternatives and two western section options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative includes Option A for the western section and Alternative 3 for the eastern section and would follow the existing alignment west and east of Hortonville and a bypass alignment around the north side of Hortonville. Costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $73.2 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded facility would provide for an efficient transportation system for the SH 15 corridor, allowing it to accommodate present and long-term traffic needs while minimizing disturbance to the corridor environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 259 acres including 33 acres of wetlands, 175 acres of farmland, 39 acres of upland habitat, and 45 acres of developed and undeveloped urban land. Displacements would include 22 residences and six commercial units. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 44 sensitive receptor sites. Construction would require special provisions to deal with 28 hazardous waste sites. The preferred alternative would affect the main channel of Black Otter Creeek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0132D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100095, Final EIS--434 pages and maps, Appendices--208 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-2006-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin 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/756826986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756826956; 14246-100093_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is approximately 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two boiling water reactor steam electric systems using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design which is rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. The reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turns a generator creating electricity. Cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure located on the baffle dike; it would then circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4 after which it would return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River to maintain water quality in the MCR. Water returned to the Colorado River enters the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank of the river two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. However, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink in the event of an emergency; instead, Units 3 and 4 would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers is returned to the MCR. To support four unit operations, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include stormwater runoff during the building phase, habitat loss and wildlife displacement from dredging and barge slip expansion, and noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise, increased surface water use from the Colorado River, increased sediment load in stormwater, and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100093, 616 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826914; 14248-100095_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and realignment of 11 miles of State Highway (SH) 15 from US 45 in the city of New London to just west of the town of Greenville and SH 76 in Outagamie County, Wisconsin are proposed. SH 15 is a rural highway transitioning to a commuter route between New London and Appleton in northeastern Wisconsin. The village of Hortonville, which lies close to the center for the study corridor, has been experiencing increased traffic congestion for several years. As development continues in the region, traffic volumes will continue to increase. The existing two-lane roadway would fail to meet the need to provide for a smooth, safe flow of traffic, particularly within the village limits of Hortonville. Safety concerns include restricted sign distances at several intersections, limited passing opportunities, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. The proposed action would expand SH 15 to a four-lane facility, with the option for a bypass of Hortonville. The corridor has been divided into two sections. The western section begins at the intersection of US 45 and SH 15 in New London and continues 3.4 miles southeastward to the intersection with County T and Givens Road. The eastern section continues 7.3 miles southeastward from the County T/Givens Road intersection through Hortonville to a point east of Julius Road in Greenville. Four eastern section alternatives and two western section options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative includes Option A for the western section and Alternative 3 for the eastern section and would follow the existing alignment west and east of Hortonville and a bypass alignment around the north side of Hortonville. Costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $73.2 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded facility would provide for an efficient transportation system for the SH 15 corridor, allowing it to accommodate present and long-term traffic needs while minimizing disturbance to the corridor environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 259 acres including 33 acres of wetlands, 175 acres of farmland, 39 acres of upland habitat, and 45 acres of developed and undeveloped urban land. Displacements would include 22 residences and six commercial units. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 44 sensitive receptor sites. Construction would require special provisions to deal with 28 hazardous waste sites. The preferred alternative would affect the main channel of Black Otter Creeek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0132D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100095, Final EIS--434 pages and maps, Appendices--208 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-2006-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin 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/756826914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756826708; 14246-100093_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is approximately 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two boiling water reactor steam electric systems using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design which is rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. The reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turns a generator creating electricity. Cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure located on the baffle dike; it would then circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4 after which it would return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River to maintain water quality in the MCR. Water returned to the Colorado River enters the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank of the river two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. However, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink in the event of an emergency; instead, Units 3 and 4 would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers is returned to the MCR. To support four unit operations, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include stormwater runoff during the building phase, habitat loss and wildlife displacement from dredging and barge slip expansion, and noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise, increased surface water use from the Colorado River, increased sediment load in stormwater, and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100093, 616 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 756826704; 14246-100093_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is approximately 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two boiling water reactor steam electric systems using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design which is rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. The reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turns a generator creating electricity. Cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure located on the baffle dike; it would then circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4 after which it would return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River to maintain water quality in the MCR. Water returned to the Colorado River enters the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank of the river two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. However, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink in the event of an emergency; instead, Units 3 and 4 would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers is returned to the MCR. To support four unit operations, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include stormwater runoff during the building phase, habitat loss and wildlife displacement from dredging and barge slip expansion, and noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise, increased surface water use from the Colorado River, increased sediment load in stormwater, and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100093, 616 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826634; 14248-100095_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and realignment of 11 miles of State Highway (SH) 15 from US 45 in the city of New London to just west of the town of Greenville and SH 76 in Outagamie County, Wisconsin are proposed. SH 15 is a rural highway transitioning to a commuter route between New London and Appleton in northeastern Wisconsin. The village of Hortonville, which lies close to the center for the study corridor, has been experiencing increased traffic congestion for several years. As development continues in the region, traffic volumes will continue to increase. The existing two-lane roadway would fail to meet the need to provide for a smooth, safe flow of traffic, particularly within the village limits of Hortonville. Safety concerns include restricted sign distances at several intersections, limited passing opportunities, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. The proposed action would expand SH 15 to a four-lane facility, with the option for a bypass of Hortonville. The corridor has been divided into two sections. The western section begins at the intersection of US 45 and SH 15 in New London and continues 3.4 miles southeastward to the intersection with County T and Givens Road. The eastern section continues 7.3 miles southeastward from the County T/Givens Road intersection through Hortonville to a point east of Julius Road in Greenville. Four eastern section alternatives and two western section options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative includes Option A for the western section and Alternative 3 for the eastern section and would follow the existing alignment west and east of Hortonville and a bypass alignment around the north side of Hortonville. Costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $73.2 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded facility would provide for an efficient transportation system for the SH 15 corridor, allowing it to accommodate present and long-term traffic needs while minimizing disturbance to the corridor environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 259 acres including 33 acres of wetlands, 175 acres of farmland, 39 acres of upland habitat, and 45 acres of developed and undeveloped urban land. Displacements would include 22 residences and six commercial units. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 44 sensitive receptor sites. Construction would require special provisions to deal with 28 hazardous waste sites. The preferred alternative would affect the main channel of Black Otter Creeek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0132D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100095, Final EIS--434 pages and maps, Appendices--208 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-2006-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin 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/756826634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION UNITS 3 AND 4, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 754908148; 14246 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP) site in Matagorda County, Texas is proposed. STP Nuclear Operating Company submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 20, 2007 for the proposed STP Units 3 and 4 which would be located 2,000 feet northwest of the existing STP Units 1 and 2. The 12,220-acre STP site is approximately 10 miles north of Matagorda Bay, 70 miles south-southwest of Houston, and 12 miles south-southwest of Bay City along the west bank of the Colorado River. Most of the site is within the Texas coastal management zone. The existing main cooling reservoir (MCR) occupies 7,000 acres of the STP site and 1,750 acres are currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. Four transmission service providers currently serve the site and the existing 345-kilovolt (kV) switchyard currently has nine 345-kV transmission lines that connect it to the utility grid. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two boiling water reactor steam electric systems using the U.S. advanced boiling water reactor design which is rated at 3,926 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross electrical output of 1,356 MW electrical and a net output of 1,300 MW electrical. The reject heat from the unit to the environment, principally the atmosphere, is 2,626 MW thermal. Heat created in the reactor core is transferred to high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, which turns a generator creating electricity. Cooling water would be withdrawn from the north shore of the MCR through an intake structure located on the baffle dike; it would then circulate through the main condensers for proposed Units 3 and 4 after which it would return to the MCR through a shared discharge structure. Water lost from the MCR through ground seepage, evaporation, and release to the Colorado River would be replaced with water withdrawn from the Colorado River at the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) located to the east of the proposed units. Water would be released from the MCR to the Colorado River to maintain water quality in the MCR. Water returned to the Colorado River enters the Colorado River through the discharge structure located on the west bank of the river two miles downstream of the RMPF. All of these structures currently exist to support the operation of Units 1 and 2. The proposed new units would have a shared exclusion area boundary and a shared plant access road with the existing units. The vent stack for proposed Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at 249 feet above grade, which is of similar elevation to the highest point of the existing units. Units 3 and 4 would rely on the MCR as the main condenser heat sink just as Units 1 and 2 do currently. However, the proposed new units would not rely on the 46-acre essential cooling pond as an ultimate heat sink in the event of an emergency; instead, Units 3 and 4 would rely on mechanical draft cooling towers. The two Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers would also be available as helper towers to provide for heat rejection to the atmosphere during normal operations. Blowdown from the cooling towers is returned to the MCR. To support four unit operations, the RMPF would be refurbished and modified within its existing footprint without any disturbances within the Colorado River. The RMPF would withdraw water through a 406-foot-long intake structure located parallel to the shoreline. The applicant has requested authorization to expand an existing barge slip on the Colorado River and to culvert and fill waters of the United States for the purpose of constructing a heavy haul road on the site. The power transmission system for the proposed Units 3 and 4 would not require new transmission lines or corridors, but a portion of the existing system would be upgraded. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses energy source alternatives, alternative sites, system design alternatives, and onsite alternatives to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity for use in the owner's current markets within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas region and/or for potential sale on the wholesale market. An additional 2,400 jobs would be created. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include stormwater runoff during the building phase, habitat loss and wildlife displacement from dredging and barge slip expansion, and noticeable impacts to traffic. Operational impacts would include increased risks of bird and bat collisions, wildlife avoidance due to noise, increased surface water use from the Colorado River, increased sediment load in stormwater, and increased frequency of discharge of MCR waters to the Colorado River. MCR discharge could cause physical scouring with adverse effects to aquatic species and habitat and the thermal plume could encourage growth of etiological agents. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100093, 616 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1937 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTH+TEXAS+PROJECT+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+STATION+UNITS+3+AND+4%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+MATAGORDA+COUNTY%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 - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 15, NEW LONDON TO GREENVILLE, OUTAGAMIE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 16384043; 14248 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction and realignment of 11 miles of State Highway (SH) 15 from US 45 in the city of New London to just west of the town of Greenville and SH 76 in Outagamie County, Wisconsin are proposed. SH 15 is a rural highway transitioning to a commuter route between New London and Appleton in northeastern Wisconsin. The village of Hortonville, which lies close to the center for the study corridor, has been experiencing increased traffic congestion for several years. As development continues in the region, traffic volumes will continue to increase. The existing two-lane roadway would fail to meet the need to provide for a smooth, safe flow of traffic, particularly within the village limits of Hortonville. Safety concerns include restricted sign distances at several intersections, limited passing opportunities, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. The proposed action would expand SH 15 to a four-lane facility, with the option for a bypass of Hortonville. The corridor has been divided into two sections. The western section begins at the intersection of US 45 and SH 15 in New London and continues 3.4 miles southeastward to the intersection with County T and Givens Road. The eastern section continues 7.3 miles southeastward from the County T/Givens Road intersection through Hortonville to a point east of Julius Road in Greenville. Four eastern section alternatives and two western section options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative includes Option A for the western section and Alternative 3 for the eastern section and would follow the existing alignment west and east of Hortonville and a bypass alignment around the north side of Hortonville. Costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $73.2 million in 2008 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expanded facility would provide for an efficient transportation system for the SH 15 corridor, allowing it to accommodate present and long-term traffic needs while minimizing disturbance to the corridor environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 259 acres including 33 acres of wetlands, 175 acres of farmland, 39 acres of upland habitat, and 45 acres of developed and undeveloped urban land. Displacements would include 22 residences and six commercial units. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 44 sensitive receptor sites. Construction would require special provisions to deal with 28 hazardous waste sites. The preferred alternative would affect the main channel of Black Otter Creeek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0132D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100095, Final EIS--434 pages and maps, Appendices--208 pages, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-2006-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin 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/16384043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+15%2C+NEW+LONDON+TO+GREENVILLE%2C+OUTAGAMIE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 876254335; 14242-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska. The proposed project would connect Port MacKenzie, the closest deep-water port to Interior Alaska, with the existing ARRC rail system. The Port's market includes bulk commodities, iron or steel materials, vehicles and heavy equipment, and mobile or modular buildings. The nearest other port in the area is the Port of Anchorage, which is an additional 35 miles from the Alaska interior. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. In addition to a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers two southern segment alternatives, three northern segment alternatives, and three connector segments. The southern segments, Mac West and Mac East, would run either east or west of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Three possible main segments north of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project are Willow, Houston, and Big Lake, with Houston having north and south variants. Connector segments would link the north and south segments to create eight possible alternatives for the proposed rail line with route mileage ranging from 31.4 miles to 46.0 miles. Although all of the proposed rail line segments are technically feasible to build, only the Mac East-Big Lake alternative and the Mac East-Connector 3-Houston-Houston South alternative would result in minimal impacts on three recreation areas, one game refuge, and 13 officially recognized trails in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the proposed alternative rail line segments would cross 100-year floodplains. Wetland impacts would range from 188 acres to 478 acres. Vegetation clearing would result in long-term impact for forest communities, especially for late-succession forests and wetlands. Clearing and grading, excavation, and construction could impact water resources. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Loss of wildlife habitat would range from 930 acres to 1,272 acres, but would still be less than one percent of the 435,895 acres of available habitat in the study area. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale. The Big Lake segment would require taking 17 residences and three structures, the Connector 3 segment would displace two structures, and the Mac East segment would displace one residence. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. Archaeological sites, historic sites, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural properties could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100089, Draft EIS--603 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 876254332; 14242-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska. The proposed project would connect Port MacKenzie, the closest deep-water port to Interior Alaska, with the existing ARRC rail system. The Port's market includes bulk commodities, iron or steel materials, vehicles and heavy equipment, and mobile or modular buildings. The nearest other port in the area is the Port of Anchorage, which is an additional 35 miles from the Alaska interior. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. In addition to a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers two southern segment alternatives, three northern segment alternatives, and three connector segments. The southern segments, Mac West and Mac East, would run either east or west of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Three possible main segments north of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project are Willow, Houston, and Big Lake, with Houston having north and south variants. Connector segments would link the north and south segments to create eight possible alternatives for the proposed rail line with route mileage ranging from 31.4 miles to 46.0 miles. Although all of the proposed rail line segments are technically feasible to build, only the Mac East-Big Lake alternative and the Mac East-Connector 3-Houston-Houston South alternative would result in minimal impacts on three recreation areas, one game refuge, and 13 officially recognized trails in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the proposed alternative rail line segments would cross 100-year floodplains. Wetland impacts would range from 188 acres to 478 acres. Vegetation clearing would result in long-term impact for forest communities, especially for late-succession forests and wetlands. Clearing and grading, excavation, and construction could impact water resources. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Loss of wildlife habitat would range from 930 acres to 1,272 acres, but would still be less than one percent of the 435,895 acres of available habitat in the study area. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale. The Big Lake segment would require taking 17 residences and three structures, the Connector 3 segment would displace two structures, and the Mac East segment would displace one residence. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. Archaeological sites, historic sites, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural properties could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100089, Draft EIS--603 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Declining Arctic Sea Ice Cover: In Situ Insights and Synthetic Finding T2 - 2010 State of the Arctic Conference AN - 754200741; 5769959 JF - 2010 State of the Arctic Conference AU - Perovich, Donald AU - Richter-Menge, Jacqueline AU - Jones, Kathleen AU - Elder, Bruce Y1 - 2010/03/16/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Mar 16 KW - Arctic KW - Sea ice KW - Polar environments KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754200741?accountid=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+State+of+the+Arctic+Conference&rft.atitle=The+Declining+Arctic+Sea+Ice+Cover%3A+In+Situ+Insights+and+Synthetic+Finding&rft.au=Perovich%2C+Donald%3BRichter-Menge%2C+Jacqueline%3BJones%2C+Kathleen%3BElder%2C+Bruce&rft.aulast=Perovich&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2010-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+State+of+the+Arctic+Conference&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://soa.arcus.org/program LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE EXTENSION TO PORT MACKENZIE, ALASKA. AN - 16385837; 14242 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 30 to 45 miles of rail line between the Port MacKenzie District in Matanuska-Susitna Borough and a point just north of Willow, Alaska are proposed. On December 5, 2008, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) filed a petition for the Port MacKenzie rail extension to provide freight services between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska. The proposed project would connect Port MacKenzie, the closest deep-water port to Interior Alaska, with the existing ARRC rail system. The Port's market includes bulk commodities, iron or steel materials, vehicles and heavy equipment, and mobile or modular buildings. The nearest other port in the area is the Port of Anchorage, which is an additional 35 miles from the Alaska interior. Port MacKenzie is situated on nearly 9,000 acres of land and has an existing dockside bulk materials loading capacity with a conveyor system. Unlike similar port facilities that serve large, ocean-going vehicles, Port MacKenzie does not have rail service. Under the proposed action, ARRC would construct and operate a single-track rail line with a right-of-way (ROW) of 200 feet which would contain a power line, buried utility lines, and an access road. In addition, ARRC would construct one rail line siding within the exiting main line ROW at the tie-in location with the rail extension. The rail line would be constructed and maintained to Class 4 standards with a 60-mile-per-hour operating speed for freight service. Operations support facilities would be constructed and a terminal reserve area along the southern terminus of the line would eventually consist of yard sidings, storage areas, and a terminal building to support train maintenance. In addition to a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers two southern segment alternatives, three northern segment alternatives, and three connector segments. The southern segments, Mac West and Mac East, would run either east or west of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project. Three possible main segments north of the Port MacKenzie Agricultural Project are Willow, Houston, and Big Lake, with Houston having north and south variants. Connector segments would link the north and south segments to create eight possible alternatives for the proposed rail line with route mileage ranging from 31.4 miles to 46.0 miles. Although all of the proposed rail line segments are technically feasible to build, only the Mac East-Big Lake alternative and the Mac East-Connector 3-Houston-Houston South alternative would result in minimal impacts on three recreation areas, one game refuge, and 13 officially recognized trails in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve efficiency for freight shipping between Port MacKenzie and Interior Alaska and result in a temporary stimulus to the local economy and labor market with an estimated 66 to 100 workers added over a two-year construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: All of the proposed alternative rail line segments would cross 100-year floodplains. Wetland impacts would range from 188 acres to 478 acres. Vegetation clearing would result in long-term impact for forest communities, especially for late-succession forests and wetlands. Clearing and grading, excavation, and construction could impact water resources. Culvert and bridge construction could degrade riparian areas with consequent loss of fish habitat, increase stages and velocities of floodwater, increase channel scour and downstream sedimentation, and change natural drainage. Loss of wildlife habitat would range from 930 acres to 1,272 acres, but would still be less than one percent of the 435,895 acres of available habitat in the study area. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Cook Inlet beluga whale. The Big Lake segment would require taking 17 residences and three structures, the Connector 3 segment would displace two structures, and the Mac East segment would displace one residence. Seismic activity could misalign or damage tracks, the railbed, or the access road. Archaeological sites, historic sites, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural properties could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100089, Draft EIS--603 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+EXTENSION+TO+PORT+MACKENZIE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Variability in the Paleoecological Record of Sediment Cores in the Chesapeake Bay Due to Location T2 - 2010 Northeastern / Southeastern Joint Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America AN - 754199084; 5754667 JF - 2010 Northeastern / Southeastern Joint Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America AU - Sowers, Angela AU - Brush, Grace Y1 - 2010/03/13/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Mar 13 KW - USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Sediment pollution KW - Cores KW - Paleoecology KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754199084?accountid=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+Northeastern+%2F+Southeastern+Joint+Section+Meeting+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Variability+in+the+Paleoecological+Record+of+Sediment+Cores+in+the+Chesapeake+Bay+Due+to+Location&rft.au=Sowers%2C+Angela%3BBrush%2C+Grace&rft.aulast=Sowers&rft.aufirst=Angela&rft.date=2010-03-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Northeastern+%2F+Southeastern+Joint+Section+Meeting+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.geosociety.org/sectdiv/northe/2010mtg/ne-se2010_awp.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Shoreline Impacts from Mining Shoals Offshore of Assateague Island National Seashore T2 - 2010 Northeastern / Southeastern Joint Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America AN - 754198339; 5754217 JF - 2010 Northeastern / Southeastern Joint Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America AU - King, David Y1 - 2010/03/13/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Mar 13 KW - USA, Assateague Island Natl. Seashore KW - Islands KW - Mining KW - Shoals KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754198339?accountid=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+Northeastern+%2F+Southeastern+Joint+Section+Meeting+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Shoreline+Impacts+from+Mining+Shoals+Offshore+of+Assateague+Island+National+Seashore&rft.au=King%2C+David&rft.aulast=King&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2010-03-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Northeastern+%2F+Southeastern+Joint+Section+Meeting+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.geosociety.org/sectdiv/northe/2010mtg/ne-se2010_awp.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-02 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 6 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873131837; 14237-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 1 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873131832; 14237-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 5 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873130226; 14237-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 4 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873130218; 14237-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 3 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873130203; 14237-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). [Part 2 of 6] T2 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 873130179; 14237-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826585; 14236-100083_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826466; 14236-100083_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826438; 14236-100083_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16373678; 14236 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIENVILLE OFFSHORE ENERGY TERMINAL DEEPWATER PORT, FORT MORGAN, ALABAMA: LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT (Docket No. USCG-2006-24644). AN - 15226304; 14237 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deepwater offshore liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal port in the Gulf of Mexico 62.6 miles south of Fort Morgan, Alabama are proposed. The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal (BOET), owned and operated by TORP Terminal LP (the applicant), would be capable of mooring a LNG carrier of up to 9.4 million cubic feet in capacity. A final EIS for the BOET license application was published August 8, 2008, but concerns regarding potential impacts to marine resources from the use of seawater to regassify LNG led to submission of an amended application proposing different regassification technology. The LNG carrier would be off-loaded using a HiLoad LNG off-loading and regasification unit (HiLoad), which is proprietary technology consisting of a remotely operated, floating, LNG transfer and regasification unit that connects to the hull of the LNG carrier. Ambient air vaporizers with methanol as an intermediate fluid would be located aboard a floating regasification unit (FRU) and would provide the heat required to regasify the LNG, all in a closed-loop vaporization system design. At the FRU, the gas would be metered and sent out via interconnect pipelines to four existing offshore pipelines (Dauphin Natural Gas Pipeline, Williams Natural Gas Pipeline, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline, and Viosca Knoll Gathering System Gas Pipeline) that connect to the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline system. The natural gas would be delivered to customers through existing facilities. BOET's average throughput capacity would be 1.2 billion standard cubic feet of gas per day (Bscfd), and peak throughput capacity would be 1.4 Bscfd. BOETs major components would include a turret mooring system, a FRU, a HiLoad unit, two mooring lines that connect the HiLoad to the FRU, two high-pressure flexible gas pipes, two floating intermediate fluid hoses, two umbilicals, and 22.7 miles of new subsea pipeline. These components would be fabricated onshore at existing sites in Alabama, Louisiana, and/or Texas. No new onshore pipelines or LNG storage facilities would be developed under this proposal. BOET's offshore construction would be expected to require approximately four months, with startup of commercial operations anticipated in 2014. Onshore support would be provided by existing facilities in Alabama. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this supplemental final EIS considers alternative actions with respect to deepwater port designs, deepwater port locations, LNG vaporization technologies, onshore fabrication sites, and offshore interconnect pipeline routes, as well as a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal port would provide a safe, effective means of importing natural gas into the United States from foreign sources. The port and terminal facilities would provide for the increasing demand for natural gas in the southern United States and elsewhere in the country and could replace more expensive, less environmentally friendly oil-fired generators and heating units in some cases. The facilities would promote the development of oil and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf by affording an economic and safe means of transporting oil and natural gas to the mainland. Construction employment would provide jobs for local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Submarine pipeline construction would temporarily disturb benthic habitat and release sediments into the water column. Operation of BOET would result in increased vessel traffic in the vicinity of the east-central Gulf, increasing delays due to vessel traffic levels and increasing the possibility of vessel collision with other vessels and with marine mammals. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C. 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (46 U.S.C. 701), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 09-0367D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0205D, Volume 31, Number 2 and 08-0379F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100084, 828 pages, CD-ROM, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15226304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.title=BIENVILLE+OFFSHORE+ENERGY+TERMINAL+DEEPWATER+PORT%2C+FORT+MORGAN%2C+ALABAMA%3A+LICENSE+APPLICATION+AMENDMENT+%28Docket+No.+USCG-2006-24644%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873131888; 14232-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873130422; 14232-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873130400; 14232-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873130249; 14232-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128032; 14232-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127603; 14232-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16370212; 14232 AB - PURPOSE: The redistribution of freshwater flow to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce harmful point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon bordered on the west by mainland Florida and on the east by a series of barrier islands. Today, nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species. Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest which has expanded landward by an average of 0.9 miles since 1940. The low productivity of this zone is primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources. The study area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW) which forms a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational land purchases, John Pennekamp State Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed and the agricultural activity responsible for most physical disturbance has ceased. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) would include a footprint of 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering 4,000 acres, 14 miles of spreader canals, seven miles of conveyance canals, backfilling of five miles of Military and North Canals, and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative M would attempt to minimize both the number of features and project extent by relying on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water. It would focus the restoration effort on saltwater wetlands and the nearshore Bay and would include a footprint of 6,561 acres of land, three pump stations, 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, five miles of spreader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative Q would include a footprint of 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering 200 acres, nine miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O, introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q and also the tentatively selected plan, would include a footprint of 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, seven miles of spreader canals, one mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 8,000 feet of mosquito control ditches. Alternative O Phase 1, a standalone increment of Alternative O, includes a footprint of 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, three miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito control ditches. As of December 2009, the total initial estimated construction cost of the tentatively selected plan is estimated at $173 million and the estimated cost of 11,312 acres of real estate is $360 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project would redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project would also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Several known archaeological sites, including the Deering Estates, are within the BBCW project area and could be affected. Major uncertainties related to the accuracy of project costs and benefits, future availability of water, future land conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise would represent a substantial risk. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). JF - EPA number: 100078, Volume 1--460 pages, Volume 2--598 pages, Volume 3--775 pages, Volume 4--688 pages, Volume 5--670 pages, Volume 6--230 pages, March 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Lagoons KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pumping Plants KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+BISCAYNE+BAY+COASTAL+WETLANDS+PHASE+1%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756826957; 14228-100074_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right of way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right of way at interchanges along I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the identified preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including include relocations and increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100074, 706 pages and maps, March 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756826920; 14228-100074_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right of way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right of way at interchanges along I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the identified preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including include relocations and increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100074, 706 pages and maps, March 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756826620; 14228-100074_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right of way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right of way at interchanges along I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the identified preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including include relocations and increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100074, 706 pages and maps, March 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16384612; 14228 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right of way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right of way at interchanges along I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the identified preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including include relocations and increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100074, 706 pages and maps, March 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigating nearshore processes at Cape Hatteras, NC AN - 807614606; 2010-097073 AB - Understanding the processes responsible for coastal change is important for managing both our natural and economic coastal resources. The USGS Carolinas Coastal Change Processes Project (http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/cccp/) is investigating the interactions between onshore, nearshore, and offshore sediment transport processes driving coastal change in the Carolinas using geophysical surveys, oceanographic studies, shoreline change analysis, and predictive models. In the coastal zone, storms are one of the primary driving forces resulting in coastal change. Understanding the processes that drive coastal change and understanding how factors such as the underlying geologic framework modify coastal evolution will increase our capability to predict impacts of storms on coastal systems. In spring 2009 we conducted a set of field observations in the offshore region around Diamond Shoals; and in February 2010 we plan a large nearshore field experiment in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to measure waves and currents in the surfzone. We will deploy oceanographic equipment at 12 sites, radar systems, dye tracers, mount a camera atop the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, and conduct topographic and bathymetric surveys. The experiment is focusing on how storms drive coastal circulation, how the interaction between the coastline orientation and wave directions drives nearshore flows, how alongshore transport processes deliver sediment to the tip of Cape Hatteras, and investigate the sediment convergence processes that maintain Diamond Shoals. Preliminary results from both experiments will be presented. An understanding of these processes will increase our capability to better understand the complex interactions that occur within and drive changes in our coastal systems. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Warner, John C AU - List, Jeffrey AU - Thieler, E Robert AU - Voulgaris, George AU - Haas, Kevin AU - McNinch, Jesse AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/03// PY - 2010 DA - March 2010 SP - 141 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - currents KW - Northwest Atlantic KW - experimental studies KW - Cape Hatteras KW - surf zones KW - landform evolution KW - sedimentation KW - shorelines KW - nearshore sedimentation KW - national parks KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - public lands KW - ocean currents KW - national seashores KW - ocean waves KW - North Carolina KW - geomorphology KW - North Atlantic KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - field studies KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/807614606?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Investigating+nearshore+processes+at+Cape+Hatteras%2C+NC&rft.au=Warner%2C+John+C%3BList%2C+Jeffrey%3BThieler%2C+E+Robert%3BVoulgaris%2C+George%3BHaas%2C+Kevin%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Warner&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=141&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 45th annual meeting Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 59th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Coastal Plain; Atlantic Ocean; Cape Hatteras; currents; Dare County North Carolina; experimental studies; field studies; geomorphology; landform evolution; national parks; national seashores; nearshore sedimentation; North Atlantic; North Carolina; Northwest Atlantic; ocean currents; ocean waves; public lands; sedimentation; shorelines; surf zones; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shoreline impacts from mining shoals offshore of Assateague Island National Seashore AN - 762682762; 2010-094525 AB - Wallops Island is a barrier island on Virginia's Eastern Shore and NASA's rocket launch site for Wallops Flight Facility. Because Wallops Island is experiencing chronic beach erosion that threatens the facility's existence, a storm damage reduction program has been designed. The closest available beach fill material for the project has been located in shoals offshore of Assateague Island National Seashore, 10+ miles away. A numerical modeling study was set up to analyze the impact of offshore mining on the wave-induced longshore sediment transport along Assateague Island. The procedure involved the refraction of offshore waves over the existing bathymetry into near-breaking depths. Then, the same offshore waves were refracted over bathymetry that had been modified by an appropriate increase in the depth in three potential borrow areas. All sets of resulting near-breaking waves were used to drive a sediment transport model, and with and without mining results were compared. The mining-induced difference in the sediment transport for each shoal was related to the natural variation in the wave climate to determine if it was significant. Blackfish Bank is the shallowest of the three shoals and the closest to shore. Modeling results showed that removing material from this shoal has shoreline impacts that exceed threshold criteria. The impacts of mining the other two shoals are below threshold criteria. For all the shoal-mining scenarios, the greatest shoreline impacts were found to be in the vicinity of Tom's Cove, a narrow isthmus separating a portion of Chincoteague Bay from the Atlantic Ocean. This is a particularly vulnerable area since repeated surveys have shown this narrow strip of land to be thinning over time, mainly due to erosion of the ocean shoreline. Because of the potential for overwash in this area, possibly leading to new inlet formation, it is important that offshore mining not have significant negative impacts in this area. Because of this analysis, Blackfish Bank has been removed from further consideration as a potential borrow site. In November 2009, after the modeling study was completed, but before offshore mining had occurred, a Nor'easter created the first substantial breach along this section of shoreline. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - King, David B, Jr AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/03// PY - 2010 DA - March 2010 SP - 103 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - mining KW - national parks KW - longshore currents KW - Worcester County Maryland KW - transport KW - national seashores KW - sediments KW - Maryland KW - Delmarva Peninsula KW - Accomack County Virginia KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - currents KW - Assateague Island National Seashore KW - sand KW - Northwest Atlantic KW - barrier islands KW - beach nourishment KW - shoals KW - Virginia KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - Chincoteague Bay KW - sedimentation KW - shorelines KW - public lands KW - ocean currents KW - Wallops Island KW - geomorphology KW - North Atlantic KW - coastal sedimentation KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762682762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Shoreline+impacts+from+mining+shoals+offshore+of+Assateague+Island+National+Seashore&rft.au=King%2C+David+B%2C+Jr%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=King&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 45th annual meeting Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 59th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Accomack County Virginia; Assateague Island National Seashore; Atlantic Coastal Plain; Atlantic Ocean; barrier islands; beach nourishment; Chincoteague Bay; clastic sediments; coastal sedimentation; currents; Delmarva Peninsula; geomorphology; longshore currents; Maryland; mining; national parks; national seashores; North Atlantic; Northwest Atlantic; numerical models; ocean currents; public lands; sand; sediment transport; sedimentation; sediments; shoals; shorelines; transport; United States; Virginia; Wallops Island; Worcester County Maryland ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827449; 14295-100144_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located approximately one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. Within a six-mile radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW electrical. New facilities and would include the Units 2 and 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed 174 miles of new or expanded transmission-line would establish an estimated 1,916 acres of new right-of-way subjecting a total of 220 acres of wetlands to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested wetlands are also present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could increase. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100144, Volume 1--867 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827440; 14295-100144_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located approximately one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. Within a six-mile radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW electrical. New facilities and would include the Units 2 and 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed 174 miles of new or expanded transmission-line would establish an estimated 1,916 acres of new right-of-way subjecting a total of 220 acres of wetlands to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested wetlands are also present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could increase. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100144, Volume 1--867 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827244; 14295-100144_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located approximately one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. Within a six-mile radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW electrical. New facilities and would include the Units 2 and 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed 174 miles of new or expanded transmission-line would establish an estimated 1,916 acres of new right-of-way subjecting a total of 220 acres of wetlands to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested wetlands are also present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could increase. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100144, Volume 1--867 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756827213; 14296-100145_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the license for the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1710 MW electrical and a net output of 1562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent effects would occur to 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100145, Volume 1--834 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756827194; 14296-100145_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the license for the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1710 MW electrical and a net output of 1562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent effects would occur to 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100145, Volume 1--834 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756827176; 14296-100145_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the license for the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1710 MW electrical and a net output of 1562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent effects would occur to 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100145, Volume 1--834 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827151; 14295-100144_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located approximately one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. Within a six-mile radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW electrical. New facilities and would include the Units 2 and 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed 174 miles of new or expanded transmission-line would establish an estimated 1,916 acres of new right-of-way subjecting a total of 220 acres of wetlands to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested wetlands are also present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could increase. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100144, Volume 1--867 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756827019; 14296-100145_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the license for the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1710 MW electrical and a net output of 1562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent effects would occur to 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100145, Volume 1--834 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Frequency-domain Green's functions for radar waves in heterogeneous 2.5D media; discussion and reply AN - 753846276; 2010-074987 AB - We call the reader's attention to a recent paper by Ellefsen et al. (2009) in which the authors use the following equation for the magnetic field H expressed in the frequency domain: JF - Geophysics AU - Bulnes, Juan D AU - Peche, Luis A AU - Travassos, Jandyr M AU - Ellefsen, Karl J AU - Croize, Delphine AU - Mazzella, Aldo T AU - McKenna, Jason R Y1 - 2010/03// PY - 2010 DA - March 2010 SP - 1 PB - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK VL - 75 IS - 2 SN - 0016-8033, 0016-8033 KW - geophysical methods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - two-and-a-half-dimensional models KW - Green function KW - algorithms KW - heterogeneity KW - magnetic field KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/753846276?accountid=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=Geophysics&rft.atitle=Frequency-domain+Green%27s+functions+for+radar+waves+in+heterogeneous+2.5D+media%3B+discussion+and+reply&rft.au=Bulnes%2C+Juan+D%3BPeche%2C+Luis+A%3BTravassos%2C+Jandyr+M%3BEllefsen%2C+Karl+J%3BCroize%2C+Delphine%3BMazzella%2C+Aldo+T%3BMcKenna%2C+Jason+R&rft.aulast=Bulnes&rft.aufirst=Juan&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=X5&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysics&rft.issn=00168033&rft_id=info:doi/10.1190%2F1.3340918 L2 - http://library.seg.org/journal/gpysa7 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - SuppNotes - For reference to original see Ellefsen, D., et al. in Goephysics, Vol. 74, No. 3, p. J13-J22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-16 N1 - CODEN - GPYSA7 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; electromagnetic methods; geophysical methods; Green function; heterogeneity; magnetic field; two-and-a-half-dimensional models DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3340918 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Contrasting shell/tissue characteristics of Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena bugensis in relation to environmental heterogeneity in the St. Lawrence River AN - 744619765; 12973618 AB - The zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, is widespread in the St. Lawrence River while the conspecific quagga mussel, Dreissena bugensis, is found only in the Lake Ontario outflow region of the river. This situation provided an opportunity to evaluate in situ environmental and interspecific heterogeneity in shell and tissue growth. Shell dry weight, carbon content, and shell strength of D. polymorpha from the four spatially discrete water masses differed significantly. For instance, D. polymorpha total and tissue mass increased over the summer in the shallow fluvial Lac Saint-Pierre but decreased in the upstream and downstream water masses. Standardized shell mass and strength of D. polymorpha was lowest where the mussels experienced salinity or low calcium. Although the response pattern of mass and glycogen content for D. polymorpha was spatially complex, mussels from the stressful oligohaline estuary population had the weakest shells and lowest glycogen content, even though their standardized tissue mass was the heaviest. This disparity in shell and tissue response suggests that some aspect of shell physiology alone may be limiting these mussels in estuarine environments. Tissue characteristics of D. polymorpha and D. bugensis were similar at the site where both were present, but the shell strength of D. bugensis was only equivalent to the weakest of D. polymorpha. We also conclude that lighter shells might make D. bugensis more susceptible to predation or mechanical damage but may also offer a bioenergetic advantage that is contributing to its rapid displacement of D. polymorpha where the two species co-occur. Index words: Environmental heterogeneity; Physiological plasticity; Competition; Growth JF - Journal of Great Lakes Research AU - Casper, Andrew F AU - Johnson, Ladd E AD - Quebec-Ocean et Departement de biologie, Universite Laval, 2056 Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon, Quebec, QC, Canada G1K 7P4, andrew.f.casper@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/03// PY - 2010 DA - Mar 2010 SP - 184 EP - 189 PB - International Association for Great Lakes Research, 2205 Commonwealth Boulevard Ann Arbor MI 48105 USA VL - 36 IS - 1 SN - 0380-1330, 0380-1330 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts KW - Tissues KW - Estuarine Environment KW - Calcium KW - Bioenergetics KW - Ecological distribution KW - Physiology KW - Predation KW - outflow KW - Freshwater KW - Plasticity KW - Population genetics KW - Lakes KW - Salinity KW - Growth KW - Carbon KW - Conspecifics KW - Interspecific relationships KW - Exotic Species KW - Salinity effects KW - Heterogeneity KW - Competition KW - Dreissena polymorpha KW - Rivers KW - Water masses KW - Mussels KW - Estuaries KW - Brackish KW - Zebra Mussels KW - ANW, Canada, Quebec, St. Lawrence Estuary KW - Glycogen KW - Dreissena bugensis KW - Strength KW - Freshwater molluscs KW - summer KW - Standards KW - North America, Ontario L. KW - Shells KW - conspecifics KW - competition KW - Q1 08443:Population genetics KW - T 2000:Cellular Calcium KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744619765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Great+Lakes+Research&rft.atitle=Contrasting+shell%2Ftissue+characteristics+of+Dreissena+polymorpha+and+Dreissena+bugensis+in+relation+to+environmental+heterogeneity+in+the+St.+Lawrence+River&rft.au=Casper%2C+Andrew+F%3BJohnson%2C+Ladd+E&rft.aulast=Casper&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.date=2010-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=184&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Great+Lakes+Research&rft.issn=03801330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jglr.2009.10.001 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Water masses; Population genetics; Freshwater molluscs; Growth; Interspecific relationships; Bioenergetics; Ecological distribution; Estuaries; Calcium; Carbon; Conspecifics; Salinity effects; Predation; Shells; Plasticity; Competition; Glycogen; Tissues; Salinity; Lakes; Physiology; summer; outflow; Standards; conspecifics; competition; Strength; Estuarine Environment; Exotic Species; Mussels; Zebra Mussels; Heterogeneity; Dreissena bugensis; Dreissena polymorpha; North America, Ontario L.; ANW, Canada, Quebec, St. Lawrence Estuary; Freshwater; Brackish DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2009.10.001 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 2 AND 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSES, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 16373964; 14295 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of combined operating licenses for the construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactor units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina is proposed. South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 27, 2008 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 which would be located approximately one mile south of the existing Unit 1. The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities located on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir in a sparsely populated, largely rural area 26 miles southeast of Columbia. The existing nuclear unit and auxiliary facilities occupy 492 acres with another 784 acres extending into the reservoir. Within a six-mile radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville, Peak, and Pomona. The applicant's proposal is to build and operate two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric generating systems. Each reactor would connect to two steam generators that transfer heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. The AP1000 design has a thermal power of 3400 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1200 MW electrical. New facilities and would include the Units 2 and 3 power blocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation. The addition of the units would require six new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and some existing lines would require upgrading. During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir. Construction and preconstruction activities would span a total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months for building Units 2 and 3. The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by two years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years. SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a total of up to 3600 workers. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional baseload electrical generation capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service areas of and Santee Cooper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed 174 miles of new or expanded transmission-line would establish an estimated 1,916 acres of new right-of-way subjecting a total of 220 acres of wetlands to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested wetlands are also present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could increase. The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic biota. Dredging activities may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and noise. Temporary impacts on local ambient air quality could occur. Transmission lines would alter the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100144, Volume 1--867 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1939 KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Cooling Systems KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=VIRGIL+C.+SUMMER+NUCLEAR+STATION+UNITS+2+AND+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSES%2C+FAIRFIELD+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 3, APPLICATION FOR COMBINED LICENSE, CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 15227196; 14296 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a combined operating license for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power reactor unit at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) site in Calvert County, Maryland is proposed. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (collectively referred to as UniStar) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the license for the proposed CCNPP Unit 3 adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 on a site near Lusby. The 2,070-acre site on the Calvert Peninsula is situated on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, 40 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. The existing two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), associated facilities, a barge slip, and onsite transmission lines occupy 331 acres. The location for proposed Unit 3 is south of CCNPP Units 1 and 2, in the vicinity of the former Camp Conoy. Unit 3 would have a separate protected area and plant access road. The Unit 3 reactor building would be surrounded by the fuel pool building, four safeguard buildings, two emergency diesel generator buildings, the reactor auxiliary building, the radioactive waste processing building, and the access building. The vent stack for Unit 3 would be the tallest new structure at approximately 211 feet above grade or about seven feet above the reactor building. Unlike existing CCNPP Units 1 and 2, which use once-through cooling systems, the Unit 3 design would consist of a closed-cycle cooling system with a single, circular, mechanical draft cooling tower. At an approximate height of 164 feet, this 528-foot diameter tower (at the base) would be the second largest structure on the site and is to be outfitted with plume abatement to minimize visible water vapor plume. Unit 3 buildings would be built of concrete. UniStar would utilize the Areva NP Inc. Evolutionary Power Reactor design and the proposed four-loop PWR is rated at 4590 megawatts (MW) thermal, with a design gross-electrical output of 1710 MW electrical and a net output of 1562 MW electrical. During accidents, makeup water for the essential service water system would be supplied from the Chesapeake Bay through a safety-related ultimate heat sink intake structure. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers energy source alternatives, building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites, and system design alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional large baseload electrical generation capacity within Maryland and avoid rolling blackouts projected to occur as soon as 2011. The employment of a large workforce for up to 86 months would have positive economic impacts on the surrounding region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 460 acres and convert 320 acres to structures, pavement, or intensively maintained ground. Permanent effects would occur to 7.9 acres of forested nontidal wetlands, 1.2 acres of emergent nontidal wetlands, 2.6 acres of nontidal open water, 8,350 feet of streambed, and 5.7 acres of tidal open waters. Building the proposed Unit 3 would impact several surface water bodies and some of the aquifers underlying the site. Land clearing would result in lost or decreased habitat for migratory birds. Dredging and the building of the intake and discharge structures would affect aquatic resources in Chesapeake Bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). JF - EPA number: 100145, Volume 1--834 pages, Volume 2--338 pages, March , 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1936 KW - Bays KW - Boiling Water Reactors KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cooling Systems KW - Dredging KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Nuclear Reactors KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Maryland KW - Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=CALVERT+CLIFFS+NUCLEAR+POWER+PLANT+UNIT+3%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+COMBINED+LICENSE%2C+CALVERT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors, Washington, District of Columbia; NRC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March , 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756827013; 14191-100060_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756827010; 14191-100060_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826967; 14191-100060_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826962; 14191-100060_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826858; 14191-100060_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826848; 14191-100060_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 16382137; 14191 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Three route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1, which is the applicants preferred route and is comprised of 12 segment alternatives, would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 439 to 813 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Route alternatives 1 and 2 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100060, Draft EIS--541 pages, Appendices A-D: 128 pages and maps, Appendices E-H: 358 pages and maps, February 26, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - On the Performance Improvement of 3-D Finite Element Code Modeling Water Flows T2 - 2010 SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing and Scientific Computing (PP10) AN - 42342493; 5656649 JF - 2010 SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing and Scientific Computing (PP10) AU - Cheng, Jing-Ru AU - Nguyen, Hung AU - Eller, Paul AU - Maier, Robert Y1 - 2010/02/24/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Feb 24 KW - Water flow KW - Stream flow KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42342493?accountid=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+Conference+on+Parallel+Processing+and+Scientific+Computing+%28PP10%29&rft.atitle=On+the+Performance+Improvement+of+3-D+Finite+Element+Code+Modeling+Water+Flows&rft.au=Cheng%2C+Jing-Ru%3BNguyen%2C+Hung%3BEller%2C+Paul%3BMaier%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Cheng&rft.aufirst=Jing-Ru&rft.date=2010-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+SIAM+Conference+on+Parallel+Processing+and+Scientific+Computing+%28PP10%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://meetings.siam.org/program.cfm?CONFCODE=PP10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 756826973; 14185-100054_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the last several decades, the WFF has focused on supporting scientific research and mission services. WFF is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal, located in federal waters, on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single near-shore breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Benthic communities and approximately 518 hectares of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 0.5 hectares of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 91 hectares of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional116 to 140 hectares of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100054, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II: Appendices--879 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 756826968; 14185-100054_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the last several decades, the WFF has focused on supporting scientific research and mission services. WFF is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal, located in federal waters, on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single near-shore breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Benthic communities and approximately 518 hectares of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 0.5 hectares of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 91 hectares of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional116 to 140 hectares of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100054, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II: Appendices--879 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 756826875; 14185-100054_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the last several decades, the WFF has focused on supporting scientific research and mission services. WFF is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal, located in federal waters, on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single near-shore breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Benthic communities and approximately 518 hectares of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 0.5 hectares of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 91 hectares of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional116 to 140 hectares of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100054, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II: Appendices--879 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 756826495; 14185-100054_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the last several decades, the WFF has focused on supporting scientific research and mission services. WFF is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal, located in federal waters, on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single near-shore breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Benthic communities and approximately 518 hectares of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 0.5 hectares of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 91 hectares of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional116 to 140 hectares of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100054, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II: Appendices--879 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 16393011; 14185 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA is the land owner with multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the last several decades, the WFF has focused on supporting scientific research and mission services. WFF is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site. The existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal, located in federal waters, on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single near-shore breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing NASA, U.S. Navy, and MARS assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Benthic communities and approximately 518 hectares of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 0.5 hectares of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 91 hectares of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional116 to 140 hectares of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100054, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II: Appendices--879 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4A LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4A LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876254340; 14173-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4a 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 improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to incorporate the NLIP into the Natomas components of the federally authorized American Rivers Common Features Project 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 Landside Improvements Project consists of four phases and the Phase 4 Project was divided into two subphases to provide construction flexibility. The Phase 4a Project is one subphase and includes proposed improvements affecting approximately six miles of the levee system in Reaches 10-15 of the Sacramento River east levee. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. The Adjacent Levee Alternative (proposed alternative) would include levee raising and seepage remediation along the Sacramento River east levee (Reaches 10-15) and in two locations of the Natomas Cross Canal south levee as well as relocation and extension of the Riverside Canal. Parcels within the Fisherman's Lake Borrow Area would be the primary source of soil borrow for Phase 4a construction; those parcels excavated for borrow material would be reclaimed as agricultural land, grassland, or managed marsh depending on their location and existing land use. Wells would be constructed to provide a water supply for habitat features. The Raise and Strengthen Levee in Place (RSLIP) Alternative would be the same as described for the proposed action except for the method of levee raising and rehabilitation, the extent of levee degrade to construct cutoff walls, and extent of encroachment removal along the Sacramento River east levee. The Phase 4a Project would be constructed at the same time as portions of the Phase 2 and 3 Projects. Construction of the Phase 4a Project is planned to begin in 2010 and anticipated to be completed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. Implementation of the proposed plan would prevent designation of the area as a special flood hazard area which would preclude new development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert 676 acres 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 potentially temporarily physically divide or disrupt an established community. Several project components would require substantial land acquisition to accommodate the expanded levee, seepage berm, and canal footprints. 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), PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0456D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100042, Final EIS--580 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 12, 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 - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Wells 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/876254340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4A LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4A LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876250989; 14173-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4a 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 improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to incorporate the NLIP into the Natomas components of the federally authorized American Rivers Common Features Project 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 Landside Improvements Project consists of four phases and the Phase 4 Project was divided into two subphases to provide construction flexibility. The Phase 4a Project is one subphase and includes proposed improvements affecting approximately six miles of the levee system in Reaches 10-15 of the Sacramento River east levee. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. The Adjacent Levee Alternative (proposed alternative) would include levee raising and seepage remediation along the Sacramento River east levee (Reaches 10-15) and in two locations of the Natomas Cross Canal south levee as well as relocation and extension of the Riverside Canal. Parcels within the Fisherman's Lake Borrow Area would be the primary source of soil borrow for Phase 4a construction; those parcels excavated for borrow material would be reclaimed as agricultural land, grassland, or managed marsh depending on their location and existing land use. Wells would be constructed to provide a water supply for habitat features. The Raise and Strengthen Levee in Place (RSLIP) Alternative would be the same as described for the proposed action except for the method of levee raising and rehabilitation, the extent of levee degrade to construct cutoff walls, and extent of encroachment removal along the Sacramento River east levee. The Phase 4a Project would be constructed at the same time as portions of the Phase 2 and 3 Projects. Construction of the Phase 4a Project is planned to begin in 2010 and anticipated to be completed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. Implementation of the proposed plan would prevent designation of the area as a special flood hazard area which would preclude new development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert 676 acres 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 potentially temporarily physically divide or disrupt an established community. Several project components would require substantial land acquisition to accommodate the expanded levee, seepage berm, and canal footprints. 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), PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0456D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100042, Final EIS--580 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 12, 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 - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Wells 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/876250989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756826952; 14172-100041_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between the cities of Holland and Grand Haven, and construction of a new route (M-231) west of 120th Avenue in Robinson and Crockery townships, Ottawa County, Michigan are proposed. US 31 is a principal arterial in the National Highway System serving north-south traffic along the Lake Michigan shoreline, providing access to more than 15 state parks as well as hundreds of tourist-oriented businesses and other recreational opportunities. Travel demand is exceeding the capacity of the existing US 31 system due to shifting land use patterns, growth in jobs and households, and increasing travel. Widely spaced crossings of the Grand River and the scheduled and unscheduled bascule bridge openings on existing US 31 in Grand Haven contribute to congested traffic conditions. Since publication of the draft EIS in October 1998, several projects in the corridor study area have improved the condition of US 31 and this final EIS analyzes a preferred alternative corridor in western Ottawa County and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative F-1a) would include: a new, 7.1-mile two-lane roadway (M-231), with a new Grand River crossing, located along an alignment between Lake Michigan Drive (M-45) and the Interstate 96 (I-96)/M-104 interchange area; additional lanes on M-104 in the vicinity of the new M-104/M-231 junction; a new I-96/M-231 interchange; and new ramps at the existing I-96/112th Avenue interchange. Additional lanes on M-231 would likely be needed in the future. Under Alternative F-1a, improvements would be made to key congested segments of existing US-31 in Grand Haven from south of Franklin Street to north of Jackson Street, and in Holland from Lakewood Boulevard north to Quincy Street. Total cost of the project is estimated at $170 million in 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to relieving congestion and addressing safety problems on the existing route, the project would contribute significantly to the expanding economy of Ottawa County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 14 farm parcels, 14.4 acres of prime farmland, 101.4 acres of locally important farmland, 15 commercial establishments, 61 residential units, and 3.1acres of wetland. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 34 receptors. The project would affect one natural area and 17 sites containing hazardous wastes could be encountered. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0055D, Volume 23, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100041, 670 pages and maps, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-98-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756826940; 14172-100041_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between the cities of Holland and Grand Haven, and construction of a new route (M-231) west of 120th Avenue in Robinson and Crockery townships, Ottawa County, Michigan are proposed. US 31 is a principal arterial in the National Highway System serving north-south traffic along the Lake Michigan shoreline, providing access to more than 15 state parks as well as hundreds of tourist-oriented businesses and other recreational opportunities. Travel demand is exceeding the capacity of the existing US 31 system due to shifting land use patterns, growth in jobs and households, and increasing travel. Widely spaced crossings of the Grand River and the scheduled and unscheduled bascule bridge openings on existing US 31 in Grand Haven contribute to congested traffic conditions. Since publication of the draft EIS in October 1998, several projects in the corridor study area have improved the condition of US 31 and this final EIS analyzes a preferred alternative corridor in western Ottawa County and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative F-1a) would include: a new, 7.1-mile two-lane roadway (M-231), with a new Grand River crossing, located along an alignment between Lake Michigan Drive (M-45) and the Interstate 96 (I-96)/M-104 interchange area; additional lanes on M-104 in the vicinity of the new M-104/M-231 junction; a new I-96/M-231 interchange; and new ramps at the existing I-96/112th Avenue interchange. Additional lanes on M-231 would likely be needed in the future. Under Alternative F-1a, improvements would be made to key congested segments of existing US-31 in Grand Haven from south of Franklin Street to north of Jackson Street, and in Holland from Lakewood Boulevard north to Quincy Street. Total cost of the project is estimated at $170 million in 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to relieving congestion and addressing safety problems on the existing route, the project would contribute significantly to the expanding economy of Ottawa County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 14 farm parcels, 14.4 acres of prime farmland, 101.4 acres of locally important farmland, 15 commercial establishments, 61 residential units, and 3.1acres of wetland. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 34 receptors. The project would affect one natural area and 17 sites containing hazardous wastes could be encountered. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0055D, Volume 23, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100041, 670 pages and maps, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-98-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756826797; 14172-100041_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between the cities of Holland and Grand Haven, and construction of a new route (M-231) west of 120th Avenue in Robinson and Crockery townships, Ottawa County, Michigan are proposed. US 31 is a principal arterial in the National Highway System serving north-south traffic along the Lake Michigan shoreline, providing access to more than 15 state parks as well as hundreds of tourist-oriented businesses and other recreational opportunities. Travel demand is exceeding the capacity of the existing US 31 system due to shifting land use patterns, growth in jobs and households, and increasing travel. Widely spaced crossings of the Grand River and the scheduled and unscheduled bascule bridge openings on existing US 31 in Grand Haven contribute to congested traffic conditions. Since publication of the draft EIS in October 1998, several projects in the corridor study area have improved the condition of US 31 and this final EIS analyzes a preferred alternative corridor in western Ottawa County and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative F-1a) would include: a new, 7.1-mile two-lane roadway (M-231), with a new Grand River crossing, located along an alignment between Lake Michigan Drive (M-45) and the Interstate 96 (I-96)/M-104 interchange area; additional lanes on M-104 in the vicinity of the new M-104/M-231 junction; a new I-96/M-231 interchange; and new ramps at the existing I-96/112th Avenue interchange. Additional lanes on M-231 would likely be needed in the future. Under Alternative F-1a, improvements would be made to key congested segments of existing US-31 in Grand Haven from south of Franklin Street to north of Jackson Street, and in Holland from Lakewood Boulevard north to Quincy Street. Total cost of the project is estimated at $170 million in 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to relieving congestion and addressing safety problems on the existing route, the project would contribute significantly to the expanding economy of Ottawa County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 14 farm parcels, 14.4 acres of prime farmland, 101.4 acres of locally important farmland, 15 commercial establishments, 61 residential units, and 3.1acres of wetland. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 34 receptors. The project would affect one natural area and 17 sites containing hazardous wastes could be encountered. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0055D, Volume 23, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100041, 670 pages and maps, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-98-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4A LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16390572; 14173 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4a 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 improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to incorporate the NLIP into the Natomas components of the federally authorized American Rivers Common Features Project 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 Landside Improvements Project consists of four phases and the Phase 4 Project was divided into two subphases to provide construction flexibility. The Phase 4a Project is one subphase and includes proposed improvements affecting approximately six miles of the levee system in Reaches 10-15 of the Sacramento River east levee. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. The Adjacent Levee Alternative (proposed alternative) would include levee raising and seepage remediation along the Sacramento River east levee (Reaches 10-15) and in two locations of the Natomas Cross Canal south levee as well as relocation and extension of the Riverside Canal. Parcels within the Fisherman's Lake Borrow Area would be the primary source of soil borrow for Phase 4a construction; those parcels excavated for borrow material would be reclaimed as agricultural land, grassland, or managed marsh depending on their location and existing land use. Wells would be constructed to provide a water supply for habitat features. The Raise and Strengthen Levee in Place (RSLIP) Alternative would be the same as described for the proposed action except for the method of levee raising and rehabilitation, the extent of levee degrade to construct cutoff walls, and extent of encroachment removal along the Sacramento River east levee. The Phase 4a Project would be constructed at the same time as portions of the Phase 2 and 3 Projects. Construction of the Phase 4a Project is planned to begin in 2010 and anticipated to be completed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. Implementation of the proposed plan would prevent designation of the area as a special flood hazard area which would preclude new development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert 676 acres 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 potentially temporarily physically divide or disrupt an established community. Several project components would require substantial land acquisition to accommodate the expanded levee, seepage berm, and canal footprints. 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), PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0456D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100042, Final EIS--580 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 12, 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 - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Wells 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/16390572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4A+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN PROJECT, OTTAWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 16382568; 14172 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between the cities of Holland and Grand Haven, and construction of a new route (M-231) west of 120th Avenue in Robinson and Crockery townships, Ottawa County, Michigan are proposed. US 31 is a principal arterial in the National Highway System serving north-south traffic along the Lake Michigan shoreline, providing access to more than 15 state parks as well as hundreds of tourist-oriented businesses and other recreational opportunities. Travel demand is exceeding the capacity of the existing US 31 system due to shifting land use patterns, growth in jobs and households, and increasing travel. Widely spaced crossings of the Grand River and the scheduled and unscheduled bascule bridge openings on existing US 31 in Grand Haven contribute to congested traffic conditions. Since publication of the draft EIS in October 1998, several projects in the corridor study area have improved the condition of US 31 and this final EIS analyzes a preferred alternative corridor in western Ottawa County and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative F-1a) would include: a new, 7.1-mile two-lane roadway (M-231), with a new Grand River crossing, located along an alignment between Lake Michigan Drive (M-45) and the Interstate 96 (I-96)/M-104 interchange area; additional lanes on M-104 in the vicinity of the new M-104/M-231 junction; a new I-96/M-231 interchange; and new ramps at the existing I-96/112th Avenue interchange. Additional lanes on M-231 would likely be needed in the future. Under Alternative F-1a, improvements would be made to key congested segments of existing US-31 in Grand Haven from south of Franklin Street to north of Jackson Street, and in Holland from Lakewood Boulevard north to Quincy Street. Total cost of the project is estimated at $170 million in 2014 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to relieving congestion and addressing safety problems on the existing route, the project would contribute significantly to the expanding economy of Ottawa County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 14 farm parcels, 14.4 acres of prime farmland, 101.4 acres of locally important farmland, 15 commercial establishments, 61 residential units, and 3.1acres of wetland. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 34 receptors. The project would affect one natural area and 17 sites containing hazardous wastes could be encountered. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 99-0055D, Volume 23, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100041, 670 pages and maps, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-98-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=US-31+HOLLAND+TO+GRAND+HAVEN+PROJECT%2C+OTTAWA+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Use and Design of Plastic Pipe on Embankment Dams T2 - 2010 Conference on Kansas Dam Safety AN - 42360890; 5664374 JF - 2010 Conference on Kansas Dam Safety AU - Anderson, Wade Y1 - 2010/02/08/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Feb 08 KW - Pipes KW - Embankments KW - Dams KW - Plastics KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42360890?accountid=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+Conference+on+Kansas+Dam+Safety&rft.atitle=Use+and+Design+of+Plastic+Pipe+on+Embankment+Dams&rft.au=Anderson%2C+Wade&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=Wade&rft.date=2010-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2010+Conference+on+Kansas+Dam+Safety&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.ksda.gov/structures/content/194/cid/1614 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE COLUMBIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR PROJECT, CHEROKEE AND SMITH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LAKE COLUMBIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR PROJECT, CHEROKEE AND SMITH COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756827021; 14166-100035_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a dam and reservoir on Mud Creek, a tributary of the Angelina River, in Cherokee and Smith counties, Texas is proposed. The population of the five-county area associated with the Lake Columbia project is projected to increase by 76 percent by the year 2060 and demand for municipal, industrial, and steam electric uses is projected to exceed available supply sometime between 2030 and 2040. The Lake Columbia dam would impound 195,500 acre-feet of water extending approximately 14 miles upstream at an average width of 1.1 miles and would inundate 10,133 acres at the conservation pool elevation of 315 feet. The reservoir would be designed to provide a firm yield of 85,507 acre-feet of water per year for municipal, industrial, and steam electric power generation customers. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water supply need and availability, downstream impacts, economic impacts, mitigation for loss of wetlands, and effects on wildlife and habitat. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a water supply alternative that would involve construction of an 86-mile large-diameter pressure pipeline from the Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River. The proposed Lake Columbia dam would be constructed on Mud Creek approximately five miles southeast of Jacksonville and three miles downstream from the U.S. Highway 79 Bridge and 16 miles upstream of the confluence of Mud Creek with the Angelina River. The proposed dam would be constructed as an earth fill structure with an impervious clay core and cutoff, a bentonite slurry trench 40 to 100 feet deep to control seepage under the dam, and soil cement to control erosion on the upstream face of the dam. Construction would also include access roads, equipment staging areas, and borrow areas. Borrow areas would be located in the reservoir pool upstream of the dam. Construction of the proposed dam and spillway would take 2.5 years and would result in the discharge of 672,000 cubic yards of fill into 220 acres of waters. The footprint would occupy 164 acres. Estimated costs of the proposed project are $191 million in capital cost, $15 million in annual operating costs, and $0.53 per 1,000 gallons of water. Cost estimates for the Toledo Bend Reservoir Pipeline alternative range from $0.69 per 1,000 gallons to $1.65 per 1,000 gallons. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide additional water supply for Angelina, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Rusk, and Smith counties in east Texas to meet projected needs through the year 2060 and beyond. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would require major modifications to two highway crossings including U.S. 79, which would require a 5,000-foot long bridge over the proposed reservoir. Additional requirements would include: realignment or relocation of five county roads, realignment of a section of the Union Pacific railroad, relocation of 15 sections of electric power lines and 10 oil and gas pipelines, modification or relocation of eight underground communication utilities, and acquisition of 15 structures including six houses. The proposed project would impact 2,247 acres of upland forest, 2,616 acres of shrub upland and grassland, 3,689 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 1,518 acres of herbaceous wetland, and 144 acres of shrub wetland. Impacts to cultural resources would include inundation of 23 known archaeological sites and eight historic structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100035, Draft EIS--360 pages, Appendices--359 pages, February 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mud Creek KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE COLUMBIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR PROJECT, CHEROKEE AND SMITH COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LAKE COLUMBIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR PROJECT, CHEROKEE AND SMITH COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756826570; 14166-100035_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a dam and reservoir on Mud Creek, a tributary of the Angelina River, in Cherokee and Smith counties, Texas is proposed. The population of the five-county area associated with the Lake Columbia project is projected to increase by 76 percent by the year 2060 and demand for municipal, industrial, and steam electric uses is projected to exceed available supply sometime between 2030 and 2040. The Lake Columbia dam would impound 195,500 acre-feet of water extending approximately 14 miles upstream at an average width of 1.1 miles and would inundate 10,133 acres at the conservation pool elevation of 315 feet. The reservoir would be designed to provide a firm yield of 85,507 acre-feet of water per year for municipal, industrial, and steam electric power generation customers. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water supply need and availability, downstream impacts, economic impacts, mitigation for loss of wetlands, and effects on wildlife and habitat. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a water supply alternative that would involve construction of an 86-mile large-diameter pressure pipeline from the Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River. The proposed Lake Columbia dam would be constructed on Mud Creek approximately five miles southeast of Jacksonville and three miles downstream from the U.S. Highway 79 Bridge and 16 miles upstream of the confluence of Mud Creek with the Angelina River. The proposed dam would be constructed as an earth fill structure with an impervious clay core and cutoff, a bentonite slurry trench 40 to 100 feet deep to control seepage under the dam, and soil cement to control erosion on the upstream face of the dam. Construction would also include access roads, equipment staging areas, and borrow areas. Borrow areas would be located in the reservoir pool upstream of the dam. Construction of the proposed dam and spillway would take 2.5 years and would result in the discharge of 672,000 cubic yards of fill into 220 acres of waters. The footprint would occupy 164 acres. Estimated costs of the proposed project are $191 million in capital cost, $15 million in annual operating costs, and $0.53 per 1,000 gallons of water. Cost estimates for the Toledo Bend Reservoir Pipeline alternative range from $0.69 per 1,000 gallons to $1.65 per 1,000 gallons. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide additional water supply for Angelina, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Rusk, and Smith counties in east Texas to meet projected needs through the year 2060 and beyond. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would require major modifications to two highway crossings including U.S. 79, which would require a 5,000-foot long bridge over the proposed reservoir. Additional requirements would include: realignment or relocation of five county roads, realignment of a section of the Union Pacific railroad, relocation of 15 sections of electric power lines and 10 oil and gas pipelines, modification or relocation of eight underground communication utilities, and acquisition of 15 structures including six houses. The proposed project would impact 2,247 acres of upland forest, 2,616 acres of shrub upland and grassland, 3,689 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 1,518 acres of herbaceous wetland, and 144 acres of shrub wetland. Impacts to cultural resources would include inundation of 23 known archaeological sites and eight historic structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100035, Draft EIS--360 pages, Appendices--359 pages, February 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mud Creek KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE COLUMBIA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR PROJECT, CHEROKEE AND SMITH COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 754908772; 14166 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a dam and reservoir on Mud Creek, a tributary of the Angelina River, in Cherokee and Smith counties, Texas is proposed. The population of the five-county area associated with the Lake Columbia project is projected to increase by 76 percent by the year 2060 and demand for municipal, industrial, and steam electric uses is projected to exceed available supply sometime between 2030 and 2040. The Lake Columbia dam would impound 195,500 acre-feet of water extending approximately 14 miles upstream at an average width of 1.1 miles and would inundate 10,133 acres at the conservation pool elevation of 315 feet. The reservoir would be designed to provide a firm yield of 85,507 acre-feet of water per year for municipal, industrial, and steam electric power generation customers. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water supply need and availability, downstream impacts, economic impacts, mitigation for loss of wetlands, and effects on wildlife and habitat. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a water supply alternative that would involve construction of an 86-mile large-diameter pressure pipeline from the Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River. The proposed Lake Columbia dam would be constructed on Mud Creek approximately five miles southeast of Jacksonville and three miles downstream from the U.S. Highway 79 Bridge and 16 miles upstream of the confluence of Mud Creek with the Angelina River. The proposed dam would be constructed as an earth fill structure with an impervious clay core and cutoff, a bentonite slurry trench 40 to 100 feet deep to control seepage under the dam, and soil cement to control erosion on the upstream face of the dam. Construction would also include access roads, equipment staging areas, and borrow areas. Borrow areas would be located in the reservoir pool upstream of the dam. Construction of the proposed dam and spillway would take 2.5 years and would result in the discharge of 672,000 cubic yards of fill into 220 acres of waters. The footprint would occupy 164 acres. Estimated costs of the proposed project are $191 million in capital cost, $15 million in annual operating costs, and $0.53 per 1,000 gallons of water. Cost estimates for the Toledo Bend Reservoir Pipeline alternative range from $0.69 per 1,000 gallons to $1.65 per 1,000 gallons. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide additional water supply for Angelina, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, Rusk, and Smith counties in east Texas to meet projected needs through the year 2060 and beyond. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would require major modifications to two highway crossings including U.S. 79, which would require a 5,000-foot long bridge over the proposed reservoir. Additional requirements would include: realignment or relocation of five county roads, realignment of a section of the Union Pacific railroad, relocation of 15 sections of electric power lines and 10 oil and gas pipelines, modification or relocation of eight underground communication utilities, and acquisition of 15 structures including six houses. The proposed project would impact 2,247 acres of upland forest, 2,616 acres of shrub upland and grassland, 3,689 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 1,518 acres of herbaceous wetland, and 144 acres of shrub wetland. Impacts to cultural resources would include inundation of 23 known archaeological sites and eight historic structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control 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: 100035, Draft EIS--360 pages, Appendices--359 pages, February 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mud Creek KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+COLUMBIA+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+RESERVOIR+PROJECT%2C+CHEROKEE+AND+SMITH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - River stage response to alteration of Upper Mississippi River channels, floodplains, and watersheds AN - 860391104; 14393435 AB - The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) is a large and diverse river system that changes character along its 1,200 mile network of rivers and canals and 2.6 million acres of floodplain. It supports more than 30 million people in its watershed, a significant commercial waterway, more than a million acres of "floodplain" agriculture and about one-half million acres of river-floodplain managed for fish, wildlife, and recreation. Large-scale geomorphology and climate patterns largely determine the hydrologic characteristics of a nested hierarchy of UMRS river reaches. The human impacts above are also important drivers determining hydrologic characteristics within the hierarchy. Understanding the relationship among physical and chemical processes and ecological responses is critical to implement an adaptive management framework for UMRS ecosystem sustainability. Historic or contemporary data from 42 locations were used to examine changes in UMRS hydrology and to demonstrate the utility of a multiple reference condition analysis for river restoration. A multivariate mathematical framework was used to show how river stage hydrology can be characterized by the variability, predictability, seasonality, and rate of change. Large-scale "geomorphic reaches" have distinct hydrologic characteristics and response to development throughout the UMRS region, but within navigation pool hydrology is similar among all impounded reaches regardless of geomorphic reach. Reaches with hydrologic characteristics similar to historic reference conditions should be examined to determine whether those characteristics support desired management objectives. Water levels can be managed, within limits to support navigation and agriculture, to more closely resemble natural hydrology for the benefit of a variety of species, habitats, and ecological processes. JF - Hydrobiologia AU - Theiling, Charles H AU - Nestler, John M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Bldg, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL, 61204-2004, USA Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - Feb 2010 SP - 17 EP - 47 PB - Springer-Verlag, Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 640 IS - 1 SN - 0018-8158, 0018-8158 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Historical account KW - Resource management KW - Freshwater KW - Watersheds KW - Water levels KW - Geomorphology KW - adaptive management KW - Hydrology KW - Seasonal variations KW - Rivers KW - Fluvial morphology KW - Wildlife KW - River discharge KW - Environmental impact KW - Navigation KW - Habitat KW - Flood Plains KW - Channels KW - Canals KW - Recreation KW - navigation KW - Habitat improvement KW - Agriculture KW - River Systems KW - flood plains KW - Human impact KW - Data processing KW - Climate KW - Flood plains KW - geomorphology KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 4070:Ecological impact of water development KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies KW - Q2 09123:Conservation 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/860391104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Hydrobiologia&rft.atitle=River+stage+response+to+alteration+of+Upper+Mississippi+River+channels%2C+floodplains%2C+and+watersheds&rft.au=Theiling%2C+Charles+H%3BNestler%2C+John+M&rft.aulast=Theiling&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=640&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrobiologia&rft.issn=00188158&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10750-009-0066-5 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Fluvial morphology; Resource management; Flood plains; Geomorphology; Habitat improvement; Environmental impact; River discharge; Hydrology; Watersheds; Rivers; Agriculture; Data processing; Climate; Wildlife; Habitat; Human impact; Water levels; Canals; Recreation; Seasonal variations; Channels; Historical account; adaptive management; navigation; geomorphology; flood plains; Flood Plains; River Systems; Navigation; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-0066-5 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation of nano and micron-sized aluminum oxide AN - 858421823; 14430102 AB - Nano-aluminum oxide (Al sub(2)O sub(3)) is used commercially in coatings and abrasives. Nano-Al sub(2)O sub(3) can also be generated through the oxidation of nano-aluminum in military propellants and energetics. The purpose of the present study was to assess toxicity and bioaccumulation of nano-Al sub(2)O sub(3) to a variety of sediment organisms (Tubifex tubifex, Hyalella azteca, Lumbriculus variegatus, and Corbicula fluminea). The bioaccumulation and toxicity of nano-Al sub(2)O sub(3) was compared with that of micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) to investigate potential size-related effects. Results of the present study show species-specific differences in relative bioaccumulation of nano and micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3). Significant toxic effects (survival and growth) were observed in H. azteca testing, but only at high concentrations unlikely to be found in the environment. Nano-Al sub(2)O sub(3) was found to be more toxic than micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) to H. azteca survival in a 14-d study in which organisms were in direct contact with a thin layer of 625 or 2,500 mg of Al sub(2)O sub(3) dispersed on the surface of either sediment or sand. A significant growth effect was also observed for nano but not micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) at the highest treatment level tested (100 g/kg Al sub(2)O sub(3)) in a 10-d H. azteca bioassay in which Al sub(2)O sub(3) was homogenized with sediment. However, differences in measured sediment Al concentrations (micron-sized = 55.1 [+/-0.6] g/kg Al; nano-sized = 66.2 [+/-0.6] g/kg Al) in the nano and micron-sized Al sub(2)O sub(3) preclude direct comparison of the toxicity of these two treatments based on particle size. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Stanley, Jacob K AU - Coleman, Jessica G AU - Weiss, Charles A AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, jacob.k.stanley@us.army.mil Y1 - 2010/02/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Feb 01 SP - 422 EP - 429 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. Lawrence KS 66044 USA VL - 29 IS - 2 SN - 1552-8618, 1552-8618 KW - Risk Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Toxicology Abstracts KW - Nano KW - Aluminum oxide KW - Sediment KW - Toxicity KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Particle size KW - Propellants KW - Survival KW - Sediments KW - Hyalella azteca KW - Lumbriculus variegatus KW - Bioassays KW - Sand KW - Oxidation KW - Corbicula fluminea KW - oxides KW - survival KW - Military KW - aluminum oxide KW - Tubifex tubifex KW - Coatings KW - X 24360:Metals KW - R2 23050:Environment KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/858421823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ariskabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Sediment+toxicity+and+bioaccumulation+of+nano+and+micron-sized+aluminum+oxide&rft.au=Stanley%2C+Jacob+K%3BColeman%2C+Jessica+G%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+A%3BSteevens%2C+Jeffery+A&rft.aulast=Stanley&rft.aufirst=Jacob&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=422&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=15528618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.52 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Particle size; Bioaccumulation; Sand; Oxidation; oxides; Survival; Toxicity; aluminum oxide; Sediments; Coatings; Bioassays; Propellants; Military; survival; Hyalella azteca; Lumbriculus variegatus; Corbicula fluminea; Tubifex tubifex DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.52 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Variability in the paleoecological record of sediment cores in the Chesapeake Bay due to location AN - 818639588; 2011-006162 AB - Biological and geochemical indicators of changes in climate and land use are reflected differently in sediment cores in the Chesapeake Bay depending on the location of the cores. Pollen and seed records from cores in three different tributaries show synchronous changes in the flora due to climate change throughout the Holocene, but the floras differ for each time interval, depending on the soil substrate of the forests from which the pollen and seeds originated. Climate changes are thus superimposed on the soil template which governs the distribution of terrestrial plant species. Likewise, land use is reflected in geochemical constituents of cores differently, depending on the location of the core with respect to its position in the Bay, whether at the mouth of a tributary in the upper Bay or closer to the ocean. Geochemical records (total organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total sulfur and carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes) of two cores, one largely influenced by the Chester and Susquehanna Rivers and the other in the main stem above the Patuxent River, changed simultaneously but differently in response to similar changes in land use. The records of these cores demonstrate how biological and geochemical indicators can be used not only to infer temporal changes but also to interpret local influences of soil substrate, tidal influence and position within the estuary. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Sowers, Angela AU - Brush, Grace S AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - February 2010 SP - 177 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - terrestrial environment KW - vegetation KW - Holocene KW - cores KW - paleoecology KW - Cenozoic KW - marine sediments KW - pollen KW - sediments KW - miospores KW - seeds KW - Maryland KW - estuarine environment KW - Susquehanna River KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - Quaternary KW - Chester River KW - tributaries KW - palynomorphs KW - Patuxent River KW - microfossils KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818639588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Variability+in+the+paleoecological+record+of+sediment+cores+in+the+Chesapeake+Bay+due+to+location&rft.au=Sowers%2C+Angela%3BBrush%2C+Grace+S%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Sowers&rft.aufirst=Angela&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=177&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 45th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 59th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Coastal Plain; Cenozoic; Chesapeake Bay; Chester River; cores; estuarine environment; Holocene; land use; marine sediments; Maryland; microfossils; miospores; paleoecology; palynomorphs; Patuxent River; pollen; Quaternary; sediments; seeds; Susquehanna River; terrestrial environment; tributaries; United States; vegetation ER - TY - BOOK T1 - USACE National Coastal Mapping Program: Data Products to Support Environmental Monitoring AN - 754886634; 13449736 AB - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Headquarters initiated a National Coastal Mapping Program (NCMP) in 2004 to provide regional, high-resolution elevation and imagery data on a recurring basis in support of the USACE regional sediment management, construction, operations and regulatory functions in the coastal zone. Over 10,000 kilometers of U.S. coast has been mapped since the programs inception. Executed by the Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of eXpertise (JALBTCX), a partnership amongst USACE, the U.S. Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command (NAVO) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both in-house and contract survey capability has been used to meet the NCMP objectives. JALBTCX in-house survey capability includes the Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey (CHARTS) system. CHARTS integrates SHOALS-3000 topographic (20 kHz) and bathymetric (3 kHz) lidar sensors, a DuncanTech-4000 digital RGB camera and a Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager (CASI)-1500 hyperspectral imager on a single remote sensing platform. Survey specifications for the NCMP require data from all four instruments. Topographic lidar coverage extends along the shoreline from the waterline inland 500 meters at a spot spacing of 1 meter. Bathymetric lidar coverage extends along the shoreline from the waterline offshore 1000 meters or to laser extinction at a spot spacing of 4-5 meters. Digital RGB imagery has a pixel resolution of 35 centimeters. CASI imagery has a spatial pixel resolution of 1 meter. The instrument collects 36 evenly-sized, evenly-spaced spectral bands over the spectral range of 350 - 1080 nm. Current NCMP deliverables include a suite of GIS-compatible data products designed to identify and quantify the physical characteristics of the coastal zone. The suite consists of ASCII- and LAS-formatted point clouds, topo/bathymetry DEMs, bare earth DEMs, shoreline vectors and imagery orthomosaics. Recent advancements in active/passive sensor data fusion have made possible the extraction of environmental characteristics from these same elevation and imagery data sets. This presentation will demonstrate the utility of bathymetric lidar as a tool for rapid environmental assessment. JALBTCX acquired high-resolution lidar elevation data along Lake Ontario, New York in 2007. Data from this survey will be processed through Optech Internationals Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) Processor for seabed texture and rugosity metrics. The SHOALS-Nearest Neighbor (NN) classifier will be used to partition the metrics into seabed classifications. USACE districts, other federal agencies and academic institutions are provided with the complete NCMP data product suite to support their coastal engineering and research needs. Active/passive sensor data fusion utilities will provide JALBTCX the opportunity to expand the NCMP data product suite. Products including basic landcover classification images and seabed classification images, for example, will be useful to a wide range of environmental monitoring applications. JF - Proceedings from the 2010 AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Sullivan, C Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - Feb 2010 PB - American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20009 USA, [URL:http://www.agu.org] KW - Ecology Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Environmental monitoring KW - Coastal engineering KW - Data processing KW - Extinction KW - Remote sensing KW - Oceanography KW - USA, Ontario L. KW - Bathymetry KW - Clouds KW - ANW, USA, New York KW - USA KW - Coastal zone KW - Classification KW - Oceans KW - Lidar applications KW - Lasers KW - Coastal mapping KW - Mapping KW - Coasts KW - M2 551.468:Coastal Oceanography (551.468) KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754886634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Ecology+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Sullivan%2C+C&rft.aulast=Sullivan&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=USACE+National+Coastal+Mapping+Program%3A+Data+Products+to+Support+Environmental+Monitoring&rft.title=USACE+National+Coastal+Mapping+Program%3A+Data+Products+to+Support+Environmental+Monitoring&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Abstracts Available N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - An Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS+): A National Operation Wave Observation Plan AN - 754886471; 13449905 AB - Surface gravity waves entering and crossing the nations waters have a profound impact on navigation, offshore operations, recreation, safety, and the economic vitality of the nations maritime and coastal communities. Although waves are a critical oceanographic variable and measurement assets exist, there are only 181 observation sites nationwide, spread over 17,000 miles of coastlines, leaving significant gaps in coverage. Although over half of these wave instruments have the capability to estimate directional waves, their accuracy varies. Moreover, existing locations were placed based on local requirements, resulting in a useful, but ad hoc wave network with limited integration of the observations into user products. The proposed system will increase the wave observation spatial coverage along and across the US coasts; and will serve as a stimulus for wave modeling activities in validation, improvements, data fusion and assimilation. The design will complement existing and future land and satellite remote sensing programs. This plan recognizes that in order to serve the broadest range of IOOS+ users, that a national wave observation network should accurately resolve the details of the directional wave field. To achieve this requires that the observations satisfy a First-5 standard. Setting the standard to a First-5 level will directly lead to improved estimates in height, period, direction, and provide better information to all users of wave information. First-5 refers to 5 fourier coefficients defining variables at a particular wave frequency. The plan identifies existing wave observation assets, presents a comprehensive system design and then makes specific recommendations to: upgrade existing sensors; add additional observations in critical gap locations; implement a continuous technology testing and evaluation program; support the QA/QC and data integration of wave observations from a large number of IOOS operators; support the operation and maintenance requirements of the system; include the training and education of IOOS wave operators; and promote the development of new sensors and measurement techniques. The design of the network is based on establishing four along-coast observational subnets. These inclu JF - Proceedings from the 2010 AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Jensen, R E AU - Willis, Z AU - Burnett, W H Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - February 2010 PB - American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20009 USA, [URL:http://www.agu.org] KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Meteorological data KW - Satellite design KW - Wave frequency KW - Sensors KW - Remote sensing KW - Navigation KW - Ocean wave heights KW - Data assimilation KW - Education KW - Recreation KW - Offshore operations KW - Surface gravity waves KW - Gravity waves KW - Planning KW - Oceanographic data KW - Coasts KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - M2 551.511:Mechanics and Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere (551.511) KW - Q2 09125:Recreation KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754886471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Jensen%2C+R+E%3BWillis%2C+Z%3BBurnett%2C+W+H&rft.aulast=Jensen&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=An+Integrated+Ocean+Observing+System+%28IOOS%2B%29%3A+A+National+Operation+Wave+Observation+Plan&rft.title=An+Integrated+Ocean+Observing+System+%28IOOS%2B%29%3A+A+National+Operation+Wave+Observation+Plan&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Abstracts Available N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-22 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Morphological Change Processes on a Macrotidal Beach AN - 754884507; 13446926 AB - Modeling sediment transport has been the focus of intensive research for the past several decades with some notable advancement. New methods that are based on first principles are incredibly computationally intensive, however, and have not demonstrated any greater accuracy when compared to the simple algorithms in present use. So all practical predictive models for shoreline and beach-face evolution change rely in part on empirical devices. Without a basis in the physical processes, these tools rely on site-specific parameters and are only applicable within a range of calibration. Greater generality is achieved only through assimilation of measured data over a larger range of conditions. The nearshore morphological model CSHORE has been under development for the past several years with an emphasis on new and physically defensible sediment transport algorithms. The model accounts for wave and current interaction, bedload and suspended load, and wave-related sediment transport. In a departure from conventional models that relate transport to bottom shear, the new model account for energy dissipation due to wave breaking. An extension to the swash is based on a probabilistic hydrodynamics and empirical closures. The sediment transport mechanism in the non-breaking region is dominated by bedload, contrasting the larger suspended transport in the energetic breaking environment. Bedload and swash formulations are presently based on short-term laboratory flume measurements and may be inappropriate in longer-term simulations or in application with pronounced alongshore non-uniformity. A high-quality field data set with measured hydrodynamics and bathymetric changes spanning the non-breaking, surf and swash would elucidate these sediment entrainment and transport processes. Mallipo Beach of the West Coast of Korea is a large pocket beach with plain bathymetry in the central part characterized by large tidal range (7 m), strong tidal current, and strong uniform winds during the winter monsoon. The high tidal range of Mallipo affords a unique opportunity where a single instrument placement can, by turns, be in the offshore non-breaking region, in the surf, and in the swash zone. During the recent experiments, an array of ADV and ADCP instruments are used to collect hydrodynamics and bottom position change. Bathymetric data are available for several years with daily high-resolution data taken by RTK-GPS and land-based LIDAR. The magnitude of sand moving around the northern and southern headlands remains an open question, but it is accepted that transport is substantially reduced at these rocky littoral barriers. The physical constraint along with data and a sand conservation statement provides inferred estimates for the transport quantities that are difficult to measure such as the bedload. The data set is presented with a focus on the important differences observed in sand entrainment and transport outside of breaking, in the surf and in the swash. A comparison of measured and computed bathymetry based on the present technology is provided. In addition to data, a global balance of sand permits an estimate of the transport quantities that can not be measured. JF - Proceedings from the 2010 AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting AU - Johnson, B AU - Lee, G Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - February 2010 PB - American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20009 USA, [URL:http://www.agu.org] KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Marine KW - Bathymetric data KW - Bed load KW - Tidal range KW - INW, Korea, Rep. KW - Sediment transport KW - Surf zone KW - Wave-induced loading KW - Surf KW - Bathymetry KW - Wave-current interaction KW - Q2 09262:Methods and instruments KW - O 1090:Instruments/Methods KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754884507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Johnson%2C+B%3BLee%2C+G&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Morphological+Change+Processes+on+a+Macrotidal+Beach&rft.title=Morphological+Change+Processes+on+a+Macrotidal+Beach&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Abstracts Available N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-22 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Phase II tungsten fate-and-transport study for Camp Edwards AN - 742911633; 2010-055650 JF - ERDC/CRREL Technical Report AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Bednar, Anthony J AU - Lambert, Dennis J AU - Bailey, Ronald N AU - Kuhlbrush, Michael AU - Taylor, Susan AU - Bigl, Sue R Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - February 2010 SP - 126 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover, NH KW - United States KW - soils KW - hydrology KW - Cape Cod KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - tungstates KW - ground water KW - attenuation KW - Barnstable County Massachusetts KW - tungsten KW - transport KW - Massachusetts KW - Camp Edwards KW - metals KW - natural attenuation KW - military facilities KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742911633?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=Clausen%2C+Jay+L%3BBednar%2C+Anthony+J%3BLambert%2C+Dennis+J%3BBailey%2C+Ronald+N%3BKuhlbrush%2C+Michael%3BTaylor%2C+Susan%3BBigl%2C+Sue+R&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Phase+II+tungsten+fate-and-transport+study+for+Camp+Edwards&rft.title=Phase+II+tungsten+fate-and-transport+study+for+Camp+Edwards&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - NH N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 14 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes 7 appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #05435 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - attenuation; Barnstable County Massachusetts; Camp Edwards; Cape Cod; ground water; hydrology; Massachusetts; metals; military facilities; natural attenuation; pollutants; pollution; soils; transport; tungstates; tungsten; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Adsorption/desorption measurements of nitroglycerin and dinitrotoluene in Camp Edwards, Massachusetts soil AN - 50058930; 2010-033112 JF - ERDC/CRREL Technical Report AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Scott, Connie L AU - Mulherin, Nathan D AU - Bigl, Susan R AU - Gooch, Gordan E AU - Douglas, Thomas A AU - Osgerby, I AU - Palm, B Y1 - 2010/02// PY - 2010 DA - February 2010 SP - 164 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover, NH KW - United States KW - soils KW - desorption KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - adsorption KW - environmental analysis KW - environmental management KW - organic compounds KW - mitigation KW - Barnstable County Massachusetts KW - nitroglycerin KW - explosives KW - transport KW - Massachusetts KW - Camp Edwards KW - military facilities KW - dinitrotoluene KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50058930?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=Clausen%2C+Jay+L%3BScott%2C+Connie+L%3BMulherin%2C+Nathan+D%3BBigl%2C+Susan+R%3BGooch%2C+Gordan+E%3BDouglas%2C+Thomas+A%3BOsgerby%2C+I%3BPalm%2C+B&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Adsorption%2Fdesorption+measurements+of+nitroglycerin+and+dinitrotoluene+in+Camp+Edwards%2C+Massachusetts+soil&rft.title=Adsorption%2Fdesorption+measurements+of+nitroglycerin+and+dinitrotoluene+in+Camp+Edwards%2C+Massachusetts+soil&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 65 N1 - PubXState - NH N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 31 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes 10 appendices, final report N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 N1 - CODEN - #05435 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - adsorption; Barnstable County Massachusetts; Camp Edwards; desorption; dinitrotoluene; environmental analysis; environmental management; explosives; Massachusetts; military facilities; mitigation; nitroglycerin; organic compounds; pollutants; pollution; soils; transport; United States ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Radar profiles of stratigraphic structures in the Antarctic ice sheets T2 - International Glaciological Conference Ice and Climate Change: A View from the South (VICC 2010) AN - 42340360; 5656310 JF - International Glaciological Conference Ice and Climate Change: A View from the South (VICC 2010) AU - Arcone, Steven Y1 - 2010/02/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Feb 01 KW - Radar KW - Ice KW - Stratigraphy KW - Glaciation KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42340360?accountid=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=International+Glaciological+Conference+Ice+and+Climate+Change%3A+A+View+from+the+South+%28VICC+2010%29&rft.atitle=Radar+profiles+of+stratigraphic+structures+in+the+Antarctic+ice+sheets&rft.au=Arcone%2C+Steven&rft.aulast=Arcone&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Glaciological+Conference+Ice+and+Climate+Change%3A+A+View+from+the+South+%28VICC+2010%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.cecs.cl/VICC2010/abstractbook.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827006; 14152-100025_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827000; 14152-100025_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826953; 14152-100025_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826945; 14152-100025_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826841; 14152-100025_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826833; 14152-100025_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826808; 14152-100025_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW RIVER INLET, ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 754908448; 14152 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline protection project for North Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed. North Topsail Beach is the northernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of North Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that a channel oriented perpendicular to the adjacent shorelines and located closer to the north end of North Topsail Beach would provide positive shoreline benefits for the adjacent oceanfront shorelines. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would provide for the implementation of an inlet management plan for New River Inlet and the construction of a beach fill project along 11.1 miles of the town's shoreline. The inlet management plan would include repositioning the main ocean bar channel to a more southerly alignment (i.e., along an azimuth of approximately 150 degrees) and periodic maintenance of the preferred position and alignment approximately every four years. The town would implement its shoreline protection project in phases to correspond with its anticipated funding stream. The phased construction plan would include relocation of the main channel in New River Inlet with disposal of the channel material along the northern 12,000 feet of its shoreline (north and central sections) and nourishment of the remaining portions of the town, including the south section, using material from an offshore borrow area. The town anticipates raising $3.0 million annually through various funding sources. The first phase of construction would extend from November 16, 2010 to March 31, 2011; this is the environmental dredging window. Initial work would involve relocation of New River Inlet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach berm fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0038D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100025, Final EIS--328 pages and maps, Appendices A and B--464 pages, Appendices C through H--685 pages and maps, January 26, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, Section 10 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+SHORELINE+PROTECTION+PROJECT%2C+NEW+RIVER+INLET%2C+ONSLOW+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, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM, COASTAL PARISHES OF LOUISIANA (PROGRAMMATIC STUDY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM, COASTAL PARISHES OF LOUISIANA (PROGRAMMATIC STUDY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756827052; 14142-100015_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a 10-year, $100 million Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDMAT) Program for 20 coastal parishes of southern Louisiana is proposed. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA Study) recommended the BUDMAT Program for programmatic authorization and a programmatic EIS for the LCA Study and a Record of Decision was signed on November 18, 2005. The study area is the coast of Louisiana, from Mississippi to Texas and includes the parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Vermilion. Nine navigation channels with the most significant opportunities for additional beneficial use of dredged material in coastal Louisiana have been identified. The BUDMAT Program would pay the incremental costs to use dredge material above those costs normally incurred in the operation and maintenance of federally maintained navigation channels. The 2004 LCA Study estimated that up to 21,000 acres of wetlands could be created through the BUDMAT Program equating to approximately $4,000 per acre of wetland created. This final EIS tiers off the LCA Study and its accompanying programmatic EIS and evaluates several programmatic management and site selection alternative plans to implement beneficial use projects, including a No Action plan where dredged materials would only be utilized within the federal standard for each channel within the existing operation and maintenance budget. Under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)-based alternative, the selection and implementation of beneficial use projects would rely on weighted scoring of eight criteria to develop one score for a given restoration project. The eight criteria with their respective weights are: cost-effectiveness (20 percent), area of need/high loss area (15 percent), implementability (15 percent), certainty of benefits (10 percent), sustainability (10 percent), riverine/freshwater input (10 percent), sediment input (10 percent), and maintenance or establishment of landscape features (10 percent). The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 204-based alternative would include the guidelines established for Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, which provides authority to use dredged material from new or existing federal projects to protect, restore, or create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. The cost sharing (25 percent non-federal, 75 percent federal) would be applied to the incremental cost above the least cost method of dredged material disposal consistent with engineering and environmental criteria. A customized program alternative that would incorporate the CWPPRA-alternative requirements for project solicitation and the CAP Section 204-alternative requirements for project planning and design is the tentatively selected plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would take greater advantage of existing sediment resources made available by the maintenance dredging of authorized federal navigation channels. Implementation would address critical needs of the LCA program by using dredged material to solicit, plan, design, and construct individual projects that: restore and create coastal landscape features that provide wildlife and fisheries habitat, reduce the loss of existing coastal landscape features, improve water quality, reduce saltwater intrusion, and provide protection to Louisiana's coastal infrastructure. A range of 3,400 to 21,000 acres of shallow open water would be converted back to wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beneficial use sites that would be considered for nomination under the program in its initial year would be limited to those that are a practical maximum pumping distance of 15 miles from the dredging location. Negative impacts to oyster leases would result from the placement of dredged material. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0392D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100015, 612 pages, January 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM, COASTAL PARISHES OF LOUISIANA (PROGRAMMATIC STUDY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM, COASTAL PARISHES OF LOUISIANA (PROGRAMMATIC STUDY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756826861; 14142-100015_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a 10-year, $100 million Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDMAT) Program for 20 coastal parishes of southern Louisiana is proposed. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA Study) recommended the BUDMAT Program for programmatic authorization and a programmatic EIS for the LCA Study and a Record of Decision was signed on November 18, 2005. The study area is the coast of Louisiana, from Mississippi to Texas and includes the parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Vermilion. Nine navigation channels with the most significant opportunities for additional beneficial use of dredged material in coastal Louisiana have been identified. The BUDMAT Program would pay the incremental costs to use dredge material above those costs normally incurred in the operation and maintenance of federally maintained navigation channels. The 2004 LCA Study estimated that up to 21,000 acres of wetlands could be created through the BUDMAT Program equating to approximately $4,000 per acre of wetland created. This final EIS tiers off the LCA Study and its accompanying programmatic EIS and evaluates several programmatic management and site selection alternative plans to implement beneficial use projects, including a No Action plan where dredged materials would only be utilized within the federal standard for each channel within the existing operation and maintenance budget. Under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)-based alternative, the selection and implementation of beneficial use projects would rely on weighted scoring of eight criteria to develop one score for a given restoration project. The eight criteria with their respective weights are: cost-effectiveness (20 percent), area of need/high loss area (15 percent), implementability (15 percent), certainty of benefits (10 percent), sustainability (10 percent), riverine/freshwater input (10 percent), sediment input (10 percent), and maintenance or establishment of landscape features (10 percent). The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 204-based alternative would include the guidelines established for Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, which provides authority to use dredged material from new or existing federal projects to protect, restore, or create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. The cost sharing (25 percent non-federal, 75 percent federal) would be applied to the incremental cost above the least cost method of dredged material disposal consistent with engineering and environmental criteria. A customized program alternative that would incorporate the CWPPRA-alternative requirements for project solicitation and the CAP Section 204-alternative requirements for project planning and design is the tentatively selected plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would take greater advantage of existing sediment resources made available by the maintenance dredging of authorized federal navigation channels. Implementation would address critical needs of the LCA program by using dredged material to solicit, plan, design, and construct individual projects that: restore and create coastal landscape features that provide wildlife and fisheries habitat, reduce the loss of existing coastal landscape features, improve water quality, reduce saltwater intrusion, and provide protection to Louisiana's coastal infrastructure. A range of 3,400 to 21,000 acres of shallow open water would be converted back to wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beneficial use sites that would be considered for nomination under the program in its initial year would be limited to those that are a practical maximum pumping distance of 15 miles from the dredging location. Negative impacts to oyster leases would result from the placement of dredged material. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0392D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100015, 612 pages, January 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PROGRAM, COASTAL PARISHES OF LOUISIANA (PROGRAMMATIC STUDY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 754908760; 14142 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a 10-year, $100 million Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (BUDMAT) Program for 20 coastal parishes of southern Louisiana is proposed. The November 2004 Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study (LCA Study) recommended the BUDMAT Program for programmatic authorization and a programmatic EIS for the LCA Study and a Record of Decision was signed on November 18, 2005. The study area is the coast of Louisiana, from Mississippi to Texas and includes the parishes of Ascension, Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Vermilion. Nine navigation channels with the most significant opportunities for additional beneficial use of dredged material in coastal Louisiana have been identified. The BUDMAT Program would pay the incremental costs to use dredge material above those costs normally incurred in the operation and maintenance of federally maintained navigation channels. The 2004 LCA Study estimated that up to 21,000 acres of wetlands could be created through the BUDMAT Program equating to approximately $4,000 per acre of wetland created. This final EIS tiers off the LCA Study and its accompanying programmatic EIS and evaluates several programmatic management and site selection alternative plans to implement beneficial use projects, including a No Action plan where dredged materials would only be utilized within the federal standard for each channel within the existing operation and maintenance budget. Under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)-based alternative, the selection and implementation of beneficial use projects would rely on weighted scoring of eight criteria to develop one score for a given restoration project. The eight criteria with their respective weights are: cost-effectiveness (20 percent), area of need/high loss area (15 percent), implementability (15 percent), certainty of benefits (10 percent), sustainability (10 percent), riverine/freshwater input (10 percent), sediment input (10 percent), and maintenance or establishment of landscape features (10 percent). The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 204-based alternative would include the guidelines established for Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, which provides authority to use dredged material from new or existing federal projects to protect, restore, or create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. The cost sharing (25 percent non-federal, 75 percent federal) would be applied to the incremental cost above the least cost method of dredged material disposal consistent with engineering and environmental criteria. A customized program alternative that would incorporate the CWPPRA-alternative requirements for project solicitation and the CAP Section 204-alternative requirements for project planning and design is the tentatively selected plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would take greater advantage of existing sediment resources made available by the maintenance dredging of authorized federal navigation channels. Implementation would address critical needs of the LCA program by using dredged material to solicit, plan, design, and construct individual projects that: restore and create coastal landscape features that provide wildlife and fisheries habitat, reduce the loss of existing coastal landscape features, improve water quality, reduce saltwater intrusion, and provide protection to Louisiana's coastal infrastructure. A range of 3,400 to 21,000 acres of shallow open water would be converted back to wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beneficial use sites that would be considered for nomination under the program in its initial year would be limited to those that are a practical maximum pumping distance of 15 miles from the dredging location. Negative impacts to oyster leases would result from the placement of dredged material. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0392D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100015, 612 pages, January 15, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+BENEFICIAL+USE+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+PROGRAM%2C+COASTAL+PARISHES+OF+LOUISIANA+%28PROGRAMMATIC+STUDY+REPORT+AND+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Energetic residues from field disposal of gun propellants AN - 744611977; 13010098 AB - Military training with howitzers and mortars produces excess propellant that is burned on the training range and can result in point sources containing high concentrations of unreacted propellant constituents. Propellants contain energetic compounds such as nitroglycerin (NG) and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), both of which are found at firing positions and propellant disposal areas. To quantify the mass of residue remaining from the field-expedient disposal of propellants, two mortar propellants and one howitzer propellant were burned under different field conditions. These conditions included burning on a snow pack, at the bottom of a snow pit, and in a pan surrounded by snow for the mortar propellants and on dry and wet sand for the howitzer propellant. For the mortar propellant, the energetics (NG) remaining after burning in the bowl, on frozen ground, and on snow were 0.21%, 5.2% and 18%, respectively. For the howitzer propellant, the difference in energetics (2,4-DNT) remaining after disposal on wet and dry sand was <0.1%, with the overall residue rate of around 1%, similar to that for the mortar propellant burned in an open container. These tests demonstrate that environmental factors, especially in winter, can play a significant role in the effectiveness of field-expedient disposal of propellants. JF - Journal of Hazardous Materials AU - Walsh, Michael R AU - Walsh, Marianne E AU - Hewitt, Alan D AD - US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290, USA, Michael.Walsh@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/01/15/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Jan 15 SP - 115 EP - 122 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 173 IS - 1-3 SN - 0304-3894, 0304-3894 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Propellants KW - Residues KW - Expedient field disposal KW - Military KW - Energetics KW - environmental factors KW - Training KW - Snow KW - burning KW - Environmental factors KW - Nitroglycerin KW - winter KW - Sand KW - Burning KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - X 24490:Other KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744611977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.atitle=Energetic+residues+from+field+disposal+of+gun+propellants&rft.au=Walsh%2C+Michael+R%3BWalsh%2C+Marianne+E%3BHewitt%2C+Alan+D&rft.aulast=Walsh&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-01-15&rft.volume=173&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=115&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.issn=03043894&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jhazmat.2009.08.056 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-31 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Nitroglycerin; Sand; Snow; Burning; Environmental factors; environmental factors; winter; Residues; Training; Propellants; Military; burning DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.056 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254932; 14137-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254926; 14137-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254920; 14137-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254915; 14137-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254910; 14137-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 27 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252297; 14137-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 26 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252283; 14137-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 25 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252272; 14137-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 24 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252263; 14137-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252255; 14137-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252252; 14137-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252249; 14137-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252247; 14137-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252245; 14137-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252243; 14137-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876252242; 14137-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 12 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251784; 14137-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251783; 14137-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251781; 14137-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251780; 14137-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251779; 14137-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 19 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248998; 14137-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248991; 14137-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248845; 14137-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876246501; 14137-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876246496; 14137-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 20 of 27] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876246489; 14137-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 754907835; 14137 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms within the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Being located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The tentatively selected plan (the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550) would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated at $118 million and renourishment costs at 4-year intervals are estimated at $17.6 million. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.7 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960. JF - EPA number: 100010, Draft EIS--293 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 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 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827012; 14132-100005_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 the draft EIS of November 2004. This supplemental draft EIS addresses new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives that have been developed in the interim. 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 a No Corridor preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also considered. Estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars for the preferred build alternative, the connection roads and interchanges, and the Old Plank Trail are $98.6 million, $18.0 million, and $6.7 million, respectively. 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 flood plans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100005, Supplemental Draft EIS--157 pages and maps, Appendices--178 pages and maps, January 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-SD 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/756827012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-11&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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 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 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826919; 14132-100005_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 the draft EIS of November 2004. This supplemental draft EIS addresses new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives that have been developed in the interim. 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 a No Corridor preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also considered. Estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars for the preferred build alternative, the connection roads and interchanges, and the Old Plank Trail are $98.6 million, $18.0 million, and $6.7 million, respectively. 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 flood plans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100005, Supplemental Draft EIS--157 pages and maps, Appendices--178 pages and maps, January 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-SD 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/756826919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-11&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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 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 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826534; 14132-100005_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 the draft EIS of November 2004. This supplemental draft EIS addresses new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives that have been developed in the interim. 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 a No Corridor preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also considered. Estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars for the preferred build alternative, the connection roads and interchanges, and the Old Plank Trail are $98.6 million, $18.0 million, and $6.7 million, respectively. 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 flood plans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100005, Supplemental Draft EIS--157 pages and maps, Appendices--178 pages and maps, January 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-SD 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/756826534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-11&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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 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 4] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 23, FOND DU LAC TO PLYMOUTH, FOND DU LAC AND SHEBOYGAN COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826514; 14132-100005_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 the draft EIS of November 2004. This supplemental draft EIS addresses new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives that have been developed in the interim. 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 a No Corridor preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also considered. Estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars for the preferred build alternative, the connection roads and interchanges, and the Old Plank Trail are $98.6 million, $18.0 million, and $6.7 million, respectively. 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 flood plans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100005, Supplemental Draft EIS--157 pages and maps, Appendices--178 pages and maps, January 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-SD 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/756826514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-11&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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 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. AN - 16381920; 14132 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 the draft EIS of November 2004. This supplemental draft EIS addresses new build alternative components and corridor preservation alternatives that have been developed in the interim. 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 a No Corridor preservation alternative for the US 151/SR 23 Interchange are also considered. Estimated construction costs in 2008 dollars for the preferred build alternative, the connection roads and interchanges, and the Old Plank Trail are $98.6 million, $18.0 million, and $6.7 million, respectively. 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 flood plans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0395D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100005, Supplemental Draft EIS--157 pages and maps, Appendices--178 pages and maps, January 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-04-03-SD 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/16381920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-11&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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756827047; 14160-100001_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756827033; 14160-100001_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826911; 14160-100001_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826883; 14160-100001_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826871; 14160-100001_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826859; 14160-100001_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826618; 14160-100001_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826486; 14160-100001_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 754908493; 14160 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Flood Risk Assessment of Complex Riverine Systems AN - 907153564; 14142102 AB - For over two decades, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has required that all of their planning processes address the Nation's water resources needs in a systems context. Corps policy requires that all flood risk management studies adopt risk analysis. Although the Corps has a requirement for systems approaches using risk analysis, there is little guidance and few tools to support these requirements. For this reason, the Corps' Institute for Water Resources sponsored investigations into the development of a new application to analyze complex riverine systems while implementing the flood risk analysis and systems requirements. This new application, currently called HEC- FRM (Flood Risk Management), will eventually become the next generation of the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Flood Damage Analysis (HEC-FDA) model. It will include a systems approach, event-based sampling, the ability to do scenario analysis, and structure-by-structure, cost, non-structural, loss-of-life, and agricultural damage analyses. The tool will accommodate many, if not all, of the recommendations that the Corps concurred with from the National Research Council report on the Corps' implementation of risk analysis for flood damage reduction (NRC, 2000), and it will also aide in implementing the Chief of Engineers' Actions for Change. This presentation will introduce the modeling concepts including sampling and solution techniques, uncertainty definitions, and system component fragility and performance interactions/relationships. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Harris, David "Jeff" AU - Dunn, Christopher N AU - Deering, Michael K AD - Chief, Hydrology and Hydraulics Technology Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 236 EP - 247 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Risk Abstracts KW - Floods KW - Risk management KW - River systems KW - Water resources KW - Risk assessment KW - Resource management KW - Climate change KW - Freshwater KW - Risks KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Assessments KW - Planning KW - Sampling KW - River basin management KW - Damage KW - Risk analysis KW - River discharge KW - Flood Damage KW - Risk KW - USA KW - Resource development KW - National planning KW - Water Resources KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use KW - R2 23070:Economics, organization KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/907153564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Flood+Risk+Assessment+of+Complex+Riverine+Systems&rft.au=Harris%2C+David+%22Jeff%22%3BDunn%2C+Christopher+N%3BDeering%2C+Michael+K&rft.aulast=Harris&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=236&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2922 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Floods; Climate change; River discharge; Water resources; Resource development; River basin management; National planning; Risks; Risk assessment; Risk management; Risk analysis; Damage; Risk; Hydrologic Models; Assessments; Planning; Sampling; Flood Damage; Water Resources; USA; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)22 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Limits of wave runup and corresponding beach-profile change from large-scale laboratory data AN - 904504277; 610540-11 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Roberts, Tiffany M AU - Wang, Ping AU - Kraus, Nicholas C Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 184 EP - 198 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - 26 IS - 1 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - experimental studies KW - landform evolution KW - analog simulation KW - prediction KW - mathematical models KW - physical models KW - variations KW - observations KW - laboratory studies KW - beaches KW - wave height KW - ocean waves KW - beach profiles KW - geomorphology KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904504277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Limits+of+wave+runup+and+corresponding+beach-profile+change+from+large-scale+laboratory+data&rft.au=Roberts%2C+Tiffany+M%3BWang%2C+Ping%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Roberts&rft.aufirst=Tiffany&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=184&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2F08-1097.1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 43 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analog simulation; beach profiles; beaches; experimental studies; geomorphology; laboratory studies; landform evolution; mathematical models; observations; ocean waves; physical models; prediction; variations; wave height DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/08-1097.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Incorporating Climate Change Impacts into the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review AN - 902348485; 14142089 AB - The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is undertaking a series of studies to support a pending decision by the United States pertaining to the future of the Columbia River Treaty with Canada. The Treaty, ratified in 1964, is an agreement between the United States and Canada to provide flood control and power benefits for both countries. In these studies, information will be developed and alternatives evaluated that provide the basis for long-term recommendations pertaining to the future of the Treaty. Assumptions drawn regarding potential future climate changes and associated hydrologic impacts could have very significant influence on alternative Treaty strategies. For several decades climate scientists have provided an increasing array of knowledge and information on climate impacts. Climatic phenomena, such as summer and wintertime droughts, floods and wind storms, have greatly affected the Pacific Northwest in the last several decades. Observed data in the West is already showing signs of global warming - reductions in spring snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt, increased runoff in winter and less runoff in summer. These shifts may potentially increase flood risks in the early spring, and change the timing and volume of water in spring and early summer available for reservoir refill. Different parts of a basin may be affected differently by warming so that high elevation snowpack may experience minor impacts while low elevation sites may experience major changes Water resource managers have struggled to understand how to incorporate the knowledge provided by science into their planning and operations. This paper discusses a decision-making framework to bridge the gap between climate science and water management for the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review. The decision framework must be robust enough to accommodate risk characterization, screening and prioritization while allowing for adaptive management strategies that avoid maladaptations. Maladaptions are decisions that prevent or constrain the ability of others to manage, reduce or otherwise adapt to the effects of climate change in the future. Modeling systems used by the team will be capable of incorporating multi-objective analyses and alternative assessments running numerous future climate scenarios in physically based hydrologic, reservoir and hydraulic models that will ultimately support the decision-making framework. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Vaddey, Seshagirirao AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Portland District, 333 SW 1 super(st) Ave., Portland, OR 97204. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 91 EP - 102 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Climate change KW - Columbia River KW - Agreements and treaties KW - Snowpack KW - Reservoir KW - Flood control KW - Resource management KW - Basins KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Decision Making KW - INE, USA, Pacific Northwest KW - Treaties KW - INE, USA, Columbia Estuary KW - Floods KW - Reservoirs KW - River basin management KW - Rivers KW - Climates KW - ANW, Canada KW - Greenhouse effect KW - Risk KW - Water management KW - Reviews KW - summer KW - Runoff KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902348485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Incorporating+Climate+Change+Impacts+into+the+Columbia+River+Treaty+2014%2F2024+Review&rft.au=Vaddey%2C+Seshagirirao&rft.aulast=Vaddey&rft.aufirst=Seshagirirao&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=91&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%299 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flood control; Reservoir; Resource management; Water management; Climate change; Water resources; Greenhouse effect; River basin management; Runoff; Floods; Reviews; Basins; summer; Reservoirs; Snowpack; Rivers; Risk; Climates; Decision Making; Treaties; INE, USA, Columbia Estuary; ANW, Canada; INE, USA, Pacific Northwest; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)9 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Water's role in measuring security and stability in Helmand Province, Afghanistan AN - 901650951; 15152769 AB - The purpose of this paper is to assess the role of water in peacebuilding, cooperation and confidence building in the early phases of counterinsurgency operations in Helmand Province from Summer 2009 to Autumn 2010. For post-conflict Helmand to achieve security, it needs water to stabilize population movement, support a change from poppy cultivation to other crops, ensure food security, support public health and generate electricity. However, officials lack critical information that they need to make informed decisions about water, while counterinsurgency efforts and assistance programmes have overlooked the lead role that water can play. JF - Water International AU - Palmer-Moloney, Laura Jean AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research & Development Center, Alexandria, VA, USA Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN United Kingdom VL - 35 IS - 5 SN - 0250-8060, 0250-8060 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Foods KW - Public Health KW - Afghanistan KW - Buildings KW - Crops KW - Cultivation KW - SW 0810:General KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/901650951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+International&rft.atitle=Water%27s+role+in+measuring+security+and+stability+in+Helmand+Province%2C+Afghanistan&rft.au=Palmer-Moloney%2C+Laura+Jean&rft.aulast=Palmer-Moloney&rft.aufirst=Laura&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+International&rft.issn=02508060&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F02508060.2011.560748 L2 - http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a935758359~frm=titlelink LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Foods; Public Health; Buildings; Crops; Cultivation; Afghanistan DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.560748 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 868224370; 14700-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Helena is located 15 miles from downtown Birmingham and Shelby County, as home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham, is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR 261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly approximately four miles to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. The proposed facility would provide a four-lane divided highway link which would connect the planned widened SR 261 with CR 52. A five-lane section would be included for a portion of the bypass to accommodate tie-in to a planned five-lane section of SR-261. The alternative alignments range in length from 3.6 miles to 3.9 miles and would all include a hydraulic structure to cross Buck Creek, a tributary of the Cahaba River. Grade separated crossings for the two railroads would also be included. The total cost for the project is estimated at $22 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for all emergency services as well as local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30 month construction period. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would range from 0.1 acre to 1.7 acres. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 800 feet of the 100-year floodplain. Under Alternative II and Alternative IIA, eight residences and three businesses would be displaced in the Starkey Street neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100430, 351 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama 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/868224370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 868224143; 14700-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Helena is located 15 miles from downtown Birmingham and Shelby County, as home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham, is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR 261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly approximately four miles to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. The proposed facility would provide a four-lane divided highway link which would connect the planned widened SR 261 with CR 52. A five-lane section would be included for a portion of the bypass to accommodate tie-in to a planned five-lane section of SR-261. The alternative alignments range in length from 3.6 miles to 3.9 miles and would all include a hydraulic structure to cross Buck Creek, a tributary of the Cahaba River. Grade separated crossings for the two railroads would also be included. The total cost for the project is estimated at $22 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for all emergency services as well as local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30 month construction period. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would range from 0.1 acre to 1.7 acres. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 800 feet of the 100-year floodplain. Under Alternative II and Alternative IIA, eight residences and three businesses would be displaced in the Starkey Street neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100430, 351 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama 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/868224143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of a New Waste-Processing By-product on Soil and Vegetation at Fort Campbell, Tennessee AN - 867739739; 14586141 AB - A garbage-processing technology has been developed that sterilizes and separates inorganic and organic components of municipal solid waste. A study was initiated to evaluate the uncomposted organic by-product of this process as a soil amendment for establishing native prairie grasses on disturbed Army training lands. The waste was incorporated into a silt loam soil at Fort Campbell Military Reservation in the central United States. The waste material was applied at rates of 0, 4.5, 9, 18, and 36Mgh super(-1) and seeded with native prairie grasses to assess its effects on vegetation for two growing seasons, with an additional unseeded control treatment for comparison to natural recovery. Treatments receiving the highest rate of application had significantly more native grass basal cover and percent composition than the controls. Plant phosphorus accumulation increased significantly with increasing pulp application. Soil phosphorus and lead concentrations increased in the top 10cm of the highest application rates where pulp was mixed in the soil. Because minimal environmental effects were detected and the pulp improved perennial grass establishment and nutrition at the 36Mgh super(-1) rate, land application should be considered a viable and beneficial alternative to current waste-management practices. JF - Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis AU - Busby, R R AU - Gebhart, D L AU - Torbert, HA AU - Dawson, JO AU - Bollero, G A AU - Potter, K N AU - Curtin AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, USA Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - Jan 2010 SP - 250 EP - 266 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN UK VL - 41 IS - 3 SN - 0010-3624, 0010-3624 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Soil KW - USA, Tennessee KW - Grasses KW - Byproducts KW - prairies KW - Plants KW - Phosphorus KW - Vegetation KW - Lead KW - Municipal solid wastes KW - P 4000:WASTE MANAGEMENT UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/867739739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Communications+in+Soil+Science+and+Plant+Analysis&rft.atitle=Effects+of+a+New+Waste-Processing+By-product+on+Soil+and+Vegetation+at+Fort+Campbell%2C+Tennessee&rft.au=Busby%2C+R+R%3BGebhart%2C+D+L%3BTorbert%2C+HA%3BDawson%2C+JO%3BBollero%2C+G+A%3BPotter%2C+K+N%3BCurtin&rft.aulast=Busby&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=250&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Communications+in+Soil+Science+and+Plant+Analysis&rft.issn=00103624&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F00103620903460773 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Number of references - 35 N1 - Last updated - 2013-12-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Grasses; prairies; Byproducts; Phosphorus; Plants; Vegetation; Municipal solid wastes; Lead; USA, Tennessee DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620903460773 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675874; 14619-100347_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675649; 14619-100347_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675642; 14619-100347_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675599; 14619-100347_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675534; 14619-100347_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stationarity; wanted dead or alive AN - 821967952; 2011-009060 AB - Aligning engineering practices with natural process behavior would appear, on its face, to be a prudent and reasonable course of action. However, given what we know about the long-term characteristics of hydroclimatic processes, does the prudent and reasonable course necessarily portend improved water management practices? We argue herein that it does not, based on three aspects of observed hydroclimatic variability and statistical inference: Hurst-Kolmogorov phenomenon; long-term persistence and the complications it introduces with respect to statistical understanding; and the arbitrariness of sampling choices with respect to trend testing. Sometimes it is better to employ a simple model with well-understood flaws than a sophisticated model whose correspondence to reality is uncertain. JF - Information Series - Colorado Water Resources Research Institute AU - Lins, Harry AU - Cohn, Tim A2 - Olsen, J. Rolf A2 - Kiang, Julie A2 - Waskom, Reagan Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 60 EP - 64 PB - Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Institute, Fort Collins, CO VL - 109 SN - 0198-8735, 0198-8735 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - ice cores KW - nonstationary processes KW - statistical analysis KW - rivers and streams KW - stationary processes KW - climate change KW - temperature KW - case studies KW - Antarctica KW - streamflow KW - stochastic processes KW - sampling KW - ice KW - Vostok Station KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821967952?accountid=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=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.atitle=Stationarity%3B+wanted+dead+or+alive&rft.au=Lins%2C+Harry%3BCohn%2C+Tim&rft.aulast=Lins&rft.aufirst=Harry&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=&rft.spage=60&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.issn=01988735&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://cwrri.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=is LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ISCIDF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Antarctica; case studies; climate change; hydrology; ice; ice cores; nonstationary processes; rivers and streams; sampling; stationary processes; statistical analysis; stochastic processes; streamflow; temperature; United States; Vostok Station ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A perspective on nonstationarity and water management AN - 821967940; 2011-009059 AB - This essay offers some perspectives on issue of nonstationarity due to climate change as a topic of concern to the water management community. Some of the challenges are the following: water management concerns are often focused on the tails of the probability distribution but the ability to predict or detect change is most effective on the central tendency. Hydrologic conditions can be non-stationary due to many types of human actions, but climate change presents special challenges because our ability to predict its impact is still so limited. The inquiry into this issue should follow both an empirical approach and a modeling approach. Precipitation analysis is useful, but it is not a substitute for the analysis of streamflow. The inquiry is difficult because it is so difficult to distinguish between persistence and human-induced trend. There is need for a major emphasis on research on decision-making in the face of this large climate change uncertainty. Finally, the issue of climate change should cause us to place increased emphasis on the continuity of hydrologic records and on the human capital needed to perform continued planning and analysis in the changing world we face. JF - Information Series - Colorado Water Resources Research Institute AU - Hirsch, Robert M A2 - Olsen, J. Rolf A2 - Kiang, Julie A2 - Waskom, Reagan Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 5 EP - 14 PB - Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Institute, Fort Collins, CO VL - 109 SN - 0198-8735, 0198-8735 KW - hydrology KW - annual variations KW - nonstationary processes KW - human activity KW - rivers and streams KW - water management KW - prediction KW - environmental effects KW - climate change KW - models KW - climate effects KW - discharge KW - water resources KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821967940?accountid=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=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.atitle=A+perspective+on+nonstationarity+and+water+management&rft.au=Hirsch%2C+Robert+M&rft.aulast=Hirsch&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=&rft.spage=5&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.issn=01988735&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://cwrri.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=is LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 10 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ISCIDF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - annual variations; climate change; climate effects; discharge; environmental effects; human activity; hydrology; models; nonstationary processes; prediction; rivers and streams; water management; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management AN - 821967930; 2011-009058 JF - Information Series - Colorado Water Resources Research Institute A2 - Olsen, J. Rolf A2 - Kiang, Julie A2 - Waskom, Reagan Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 304 PB - Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Institute, Fort Collins, CO VL - 109 SN - 0198-8735, 0198-8735 KW - hydrology KW - symposia KW - stochastic processes KW - nonstationary processes KW - statistical analysis KW - climate effects KW - water management KW - frequency KW - climate change KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821967930?accountid=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=conference&rft.jtitle=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.atitle=Workshop+on+Nonstationarity%2C+hydrologic+frequency+analysis%2C+and+water+management&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.issn=01988735&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://cwrri.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=is LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Individual papers within scope are cited separately N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ISCIDF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - climate change; climate effects; frequency; hydrology; nonstationary processes; statistical analysis; stochastic processes; symposia; water management ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Planning hydrology based on blends of instrumental records, paleoclimate, and projected climate information AN - 821967341; 2011-009062 AB - Planning studies are critical during evaluation of changes to water supply, demands, or reservoir operating policies. These studies allow water management agencies, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, to evaluate the impacts of proposed changes in a river basin system under their management and convey their findings to critical stakeholders and the general public. Planning studies typically structure an assumption of future water supply, demands, and reservoir operations and represent changes to one or a combination of these assumptions versus present conditions. Future water supply assumption or planning hydrologies are typically developed from information based on observed gauge records. Planning hydrologies based on these data assume that future conditions can be represented by the climate events of the observed past. Recent evidence has shown the observed past may not provide an adequate proxy of future climate. It is becoming increasing difficult to depend on planning hydrologies that are solely based on information provided by the recent observed past. In the Colorado River Basin, until 2007 planning studies only utilized a naturalized flow dataset that extended back to 1906. This record was built from observed records that capture the hydrologic variability observed over the last century. Though the Colorado River Basin has a "long" observed dataset, in the eyes of many practitioners the basin has been recently enduring a drought that is unprecedented in its observed record. The current drought that began in 2000 continues today producing the lowest ten year average flow in the last hundred years. This unprecedented drought has provided an excellent opportunity for Reclamation to explore alternate methods to develop planning hydrologies that go beyond dependence on the observed past. As a first step Reclamation sought to re-introduce paleo-reconstructed streamflows. These reconstructions provide a window into the distant past, significantly enhancing relevant frequency characteristics in a planning hydrology and incorporating climate information from the past one thousand years rather than just the last one hundred. Such reconstructions have been available in the Colorado River basin since 1976 but have not gained wide acceptance in planning studies. Though reconstructed streamflows provide rich information and should be incorporated in planning hydrologies, the magnitudes of reconstructed streamflow can have a high degree of uncertainty. When creating a reconstruction a regression model is fit to the observed streamflow with a collection of tree ring observations as the predictors. This fitted model is then used to estimate streamflows in the pre-observational period using the tree ring observations. The reconstructed streamflows can be sensitive to the choice of model as demonstrated by Hidalgo et al. (2000). This apparent weakness of the paleo reconstructed flow data has rendered their use in a water resources planning context questionable, despite the availability of paleo reconstructed data for many decades. Despite these apparent weaknesses, few argue about the duration and frequency of dry and wet (i.e., the hydrologic state) periods from the reconstructions. Recognizing the limitations of relying on only the instrumental record for long-term planning studies, Reclamation devised a framework to combine the long paleo reconstructed streamflow information of lower reliability with the shorter but reliable observational data. The framework blends paleoreconstructed hydrologic state (i.e., wet or dry) with instrumental records magnitudes. With these datasets the framework addresses generating simulations for planning studies with drought and surplus spells that demonstrate the persistence underlying the lengthy paleo reconstructions. JF - Information Series - Colorado Water Resources Research Institute AU - Prairie, James A2 - Olsen, J. Rolf A2 - Kiang, Julie A2 - Waskom, Reagan Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 218 EP - 228 PB - Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Institute, Fort Collins, CO VL - 109 SN - 0198-8735, 0198-8735 KW - United States KW - models KW - hydrology KW - Colorado River basin KW - Western U.S. KW - sensitivity analysis KW - climate effects KW - water management KW - prediction KW - paleoclimatology KW - climate change KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821967341?accountid=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=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.atitle=Planning+hydrology+based+on+blends+of+instrumental+records%2C+paleoclimate%2C+and+projected+climate+information&rft.au=Prairie%2C+James&rft.aulast=Prairie&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=&rft.spage=218&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.issn=01988735&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://cwrri.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=is LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ISCIDF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - climate change; climate effects; Colorado River basin; hydrology; models; paleoclimatology; prediction; sensitivity analysis; United States; water management; Western U.S. ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California; a multi-model ensemble analysis of projections of storm frequency and magnitude changes AN - 821967073; 2011-009061 AB - Several recent studies have shown the important role that "atmospheric rivers" (ARs) of concentrated near-surface water-vapor transport above the Pacific Ocean play in historic storms and floods in the West Coast states. By delivering large masses of warm, moist air (sometimes directly from the Tropics), ARs establish conditions for the kinds of high snowlines and copious rainfall that have caused the largest historical storms in California, Oregon, and Washington. In many California rivers, essentially all major historical floods have been associated with AR conditions. Thus the future of these storms is likely to have an important influence on nonstationarities of flood frequencies and magnitudes in the face of projected 21st century climate changes. As a concrete example of the kinds of storm changes that may underlie future flood-frequency changes, the occurrence of such storms in historical observations and in a 7-model ensemble of historical-climate and projected future-climate simulations has been evaluated. Under an A2 greenhouse-gas emissions scenario (with emissions accelerating throughout the 21st century), average AR statistics do not change much in most climate models; however, extremes change notably. Years with many AR episodes increase, ARs with higher-than-historical water-vapor transport rates increase, and AR storm-temperatures increase. Furthermore, the peak season within which most ARs occur is commonly projected to lengthen, extending the flood-hazard season. All of these tendencies could increase opportunities for both more frequent and more severe floods in California under projected climate changes. JF - Information Series - Colorado Water Resources Research Institute AU - Dettinger, Michael A2 - Olsen, J. Rolf A2 - Kiang, Julie A2 - Waskom, Reagan Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 158 EP - 166 PB - Colorado State University, Colorado Water Resources Institute, Fort Collins, CO VL - 109 SN - 0198-8735, 0198-8735 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - general circulation models KW - numerical models KW - geologic hazards KW - data processing KW - prediction KW - water vapor KW - atmospheric precipitation KW - frequency KW - climate change KW - California KW - transport KW - atmospheric transport KW - Pacific Ocean KW - digital simulation KW - floods KW - climate effects KW - risk assessment KW - storms KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821967073?accountid=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=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.atitle=Climate+change%2C+atmospheric+rivers%2C+and+floods+in+California%3B+a+multi-model+ensemble+analysis+of+projections+of+storm+frequency+and+magnitude+changes&rft.au=Dettinger%2C+Michael&rft.aulast=Dettinger&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=&rft.spage=158&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Information+Series+-+Colorado+Water+Resources+Research+Institute&rft.issn=01988735&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://cwrri.colostate.edu/publications.asp?pubs=is LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Workshop on Nonstationarity, hydrologic frequency analysis, and water management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ISCIDF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - atmospheric precipitation; atmospheric transport; California; climate change; climate effects; data processing; digital simulation; floods; frequency; general circulation models; geologic hazards; hydrology; numerical models; Pacific Ocean; prediction; risk assessment; storms; transport; United States; water vapor ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HELENA BYPASS PROJECT, FROM COUNTY ROAD 52 IN HELENA TO STATE ROUTE 261 NEAR BEARDEN ROAD, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA (PROJECT NO. ST-059-261-004). AN - 818791547; 14700 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the City of Helena, Alabama, from County Road 52 (CR-52) to State Route 261 (SR-261), in northwestern Shelby County is proposed. Helena is located 15 miles from downtown Birmingham and Shelby County, as home to many suburban communities of metropolitan Birmingham, is the fastest growing county in the state. The historic district of Old Towne Helena currently experiences congestion problems, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. There are two active railroads with at-grade crossings of SR 261 in the Old Towne area which regularly cause delays and congestion. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project would begin southwest of the downtown area on CR-52 approximately 6,600 feet west of the existing intersection of CR-52 and SR-261 and traverse northeasterly approximately four miles to a terminus with SR-261 near Bearden Road. The proposed facility would provide a four-lane divided highway link which would connect the planned widened SR 261 with CR 52. A five-lane section would be included for a portion of the bypass to accommodate tie-in to a planned five-lane section of SR-261. The alternative alignments range in length from 3.6 miles to 3.9 miles and would all include a hydraulic structure to cross Buck Creek, a tributary of the Cahaba River. Grade separated crossings for the two railroads would also be included. The total cost for the project is estimated at $22 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide some relief for the existing congested road network and the proposed project would serve as the transportation backbone for Helena's ongoing development. Travel times would be improved for all emergency services as well as local and through traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term traffic disruption, soil erosion and sedimentation, air quality reduction, noise increases, and utilities disruptions could occur during the estimated 30 month construction period. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would range from 0.1 acre to 1.7 acres. The bridge-crossing of Buck Creek would impact 800 feet of the 100-year floodplain. Under Alternative II and Alternative IIA, eight residences and three businesses would be displaced in the Starkey Street neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100430, 351 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-07-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama 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/818791547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.title=HELENA+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+FROM+COUNTY+ROAD+52+IN+HELENA+TO+STATE+ROUTE+261+NEAR+BEARDEN+ROAD%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+%28PROJECT+NO.+ST-059-261-004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - U. S. Army use of Geospatial PDF (GeoPDF) AN - 818636228; 2011-005783 JF - Abstracts, Annual Meeting - Association of American Geographers AU - Caputo, Ray AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 116 PB - Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC VL - 2010 SN - 0197-1700, 0197-1700 KW - GeoPDF KW - military geology KW - Geospatial PDF KW - spatial data KW - mapping KW - applications KW - information management KW - digitization KW - data management KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818636228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts%2C+Annual+Meeting+-+Association+of+American+Geographers&rft.atitle=U.+S.+Army+use+of+Geospatial+PDF+%28GeoPDF%29&rft.au=Caputo%2C+Ray%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Caputo&rft.aufirst=Ray&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=2010&rft.issue=&rft.spage=116&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts%2C+Annual+Meeting+-+Association+of+American+Geographers&rft.issn=01971700&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aag.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 2010 AAG annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - applications; data management; digitization; GeoPDF; Geospatial PDF; information management; mapping; military geology; spatial data ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of bacterial biofilms on Bacillus globigii spore viability in model chlorinated water distribution systems AN - 762269207; 13725928 AB - Viability of Bacillus globigii spores in chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe loop systems were examined under oligotrophic conditions. Three 2.5 cm X 10 m pipe loops having poised free chlorine concentrations of 0.,0.5, and 1.0 mg/L were seeded with 3.0 X 108 B. globigii spores each and viability was assessed over a 21 day period in both the recirculating waters and within the biofilms associated with pipe wall surfaces. After 10 min of exposure, viable spores were found to be associated within the pipe biofilms. In the untreated pipe loop spore counts remained statistically consistent in both the bulk water and biofilm until 1.0 mg/L free chlorine was introduced, then spores were completely inactivated in less than seven days. Spores within the pipe loop poised at 0.5 mg/L free chlorine showed a 7.6-log10 inactivation in the bulk water phase, but only a 2.7-log10 inactivation was observed within the biofilm after 14 days of treatment. Complete inactivation was observed in the 1.0 mg/L free chlorine system in both the biofilm and the bulk water phase in less than 10 min. These data demonstrated that B. globigii spores were readily incorporated into PVC pipe biofilms, which decreased spore inactivation nearly five orders of magnitude under moderate free chlorine concentrations. JF - Water Science & Technology: Water Supply AU - Arnett, C M AU - Beckman, A M AU - Ginsberg, M D AU - Hock, V F AD - US Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 2902 Newmark Dr, Champaign, IL 61822, USA : clint.arnett super(s)ace.army.mil; vincent.f.hock super(s)ace.army.mil; mark.d.ginsber super(s)ace.army.mil; anne.beckman super(s)ace.army.mil, clint.arnett@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 277 EP - 285 PB - IWA Publishing, Alliance House London SW1H 0QS UK VL - 10 IS - 1 SN - 1606-9749, 1606-9749 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Water Resources Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - inactivation KW - Chlorophylls KW - Water Supply KW - Chlorides KW - Chlorine KW - Water supplies KW - Exposure KW - Biofilms KW - Bacillus KW - Modelling KW - Bacillus globigii KW - Pipes KW - Data processing KW - polyvinyl chloride KW - Model Studies KW - Water supply KW - Spores KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - A 01450:Environmental Pollution & Waste Treatment KW - J 02320:Cell Biology KW - SW 3060:Water treatment and distribution KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762269207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Science+%26+Technology%3A+Water+Supply&rft.atitle=Influence+of+bacterial+biofilms+on+Bacillus+globigii+spore+viability+in+model+chlorinated+water+distribution+systems&rft.au=Arnett%2C+C+M%3BBeckman%2C+A+M%3BGinsberg%2C+M+D%3BHock%2C+V+F&rft.aulast=Arnett&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=277&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Science+%26+Technology%3A+Water+Supply&rft.issn=16069749&rft_id=info:doi/10.2166%2Fws.2010.036 L2 - http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/01003/ws010030277.htm LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chlorophylls; Biofilms; Spores; Modelling; Water supply; Data processing; polyvinyl chloride; Chlorine; Water supplies; inactivation; Pipes; Chlorides; Exposure; Water Supply; Bacillus; Model Studies; Bacillus globigii DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ws.2010.036 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Potential impact of sea level rise on coastal surges in southeast Louisiana AN - 759308110; 13012421 AB - Potential impacts of 0.5 and 1.0m of relative sea level rise (RSLR) on hurricane surge and waves in southeast Louisiana are investigated using the numerical storm surge model ADCIRC and the nearshore spectral wave model STWAVE. The models were applied for six hypothetic hurricanes that produce approximately 100yr water levels in southeastern Louisiana. In areas of maximum surge, the impact of RSLR on surge was generally linear (equal to the RSLR). In wetland or wetland-fronted areas of moderate peak surges (2-3m), the surge levels were increased by as much as 1-3m (in addition to the RSLR). The surge increase is as much as double and triple the RSLR over broad areas and as much as five times the RSLR in isolated areas. Waves increase significantly in shallow areas due to the combined increases in water depth due to RSLR and surge increases. Maximum increases in wave height for the modeled storms were 1-1.5m. Surge propagation over broad, shallow, wetland areas is highly sensitive to RSLR. Wave heights also generally increased for all RSLR cases. These increases were significant (0.5-1.5m for 1m RSLR), but less dramatic than the surge increases. JF - Ocean Engineering AU - Smith, Jane McKee AU - Cialone, Mary A AU - Wamsley, Ty V AU - McAlpin, Tate O AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, Jane.M.Smith@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 37 EP - 47 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 37 IS - 1 SN - 0029-8018, 0029-8018 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Hurricane KW - Katrina KW - Sea level rise KW - Southeast Louisiana KW - Storm surge KW - Waves KW - ADCIRC KW - STWAVE KW - IPET KW - Marine KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Offshore engineering KW - Mathematical models KW - Surges KW - Storms KW - Model Studies KW - Wave Height KW - Sea Level KW - Hurricanes KW - Coastal zone KW - Storm surges KW - Oceans KW - Wave height KW - Wetlands KW - Hurricane waves KW - Sea level changes KW - SW 0890:Estuaries KW - Q2 09167:Tides, surges and sea level KW - O 2070:Meteorology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759308110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Potential+impact+of+sea+level+rise+on+coastal+surges+in+southeast+Louisiana&rft.au=Smith%2C+Jane+McKee%3BCialone%2C+Mary+A%3BWamsley%2C+Ty+V%3BMcAlpin%2C+Tate+O&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Jane&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=37&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=00298018&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.oceaneng.2009.07.008 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Coastal zone; Offshore engineering; Mathematical models; Storm surges; Wave height; Surges; Hurricane waves; Wetlands; Sea level changes; Sea Level; Hurricanes; Oceans; Waves; Storms; Wave Height; Model Studies; ASW, USA, Louisiana; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.07.008 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of storm surge which led to flooding in St. Bernard Polder during Hurricane Katrina AN - 759307561; 13012415 AB - Hurricane Katrina caused devastating flooding in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Storm surge surrounded the polder that comprises heavily populated sections of the Parish in addition to the Lower 9th Ward section of Orleans Parish. Surge propagated along several pathways to reach levees and walls around the polder's periphery. Extreme water levels led to breaches in the levee/wall system which, along with wave overtopping and steady overflow, led to considerable flood water entering the polder. Generation and evolution of the storm surge as it propagated into the region is examined using results from the SL15 regional application of the ADCIRC storm surge model. Fluxes of water into the region through navigation channels are compared to fluxes which entered through Lake Borgne and over inundated wetlands surrounding the lake. Fluxes through Lake Borgne and adjacent wetlands were found to be the predominant source of water reaching the region. Various sources of flood water along the polder periphery are examined. Flood water primarily entered through the east and west sides of the polder. Different peak surges and hydrograph shapes were experienced along the polder boundaries, and reasons for the spatial variability in surge conditions are discussed. JF - Ocean Engineering AU - Ebersole, BA AU - Westerink, J J AU - Bunya, S AU - Dietrich, J C AU - Cialone, MA AD - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - 91 EP - 103 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 800 Kidlington Oxford OX5 1DX UK VL - 37 IS - 1 SN - 0029-8018, 0029-8018 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Hurricane KW - Katrina KW - Louisiana KW - Storm KW - Surge KW - Inundation KW - Flooding KW - ADCIRC KW - Marine KW - Overflow KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Surges KW - Levees KW - Polders KW - Hurricanes KW - Lakes KW - Storm surges KW - Floods KW - Storm Surges KW - Wetlands KW - Overtopping KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - Q2 09281:General KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759307561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Development+of+storm+surge+which+led+to+flooding+in+St.+Bernard+Polder+during+Hurricane+Katrina&rft.au=Ebersole%2C+BA%3BWesterink%2C+J+J%3BBunya%2C+S%3BDietrich%2C+J+C%3BCialone%2C+MA&rft.aulast=Ebersole&rft.aufirst=BA&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=00298018&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.oceaneng.2009.08.013 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Overflow; Hurricanes; Storm surges; Surges; Levees; Flooding; Wetlands; Polders; Overtopping; Lakes; Floods; Storm Surges; ASW, USA, Louisiana; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.08.013 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ultra-shallow seismic imaging of the top of the saturated zone AN - 759303761; 2010-087100 AB - We collected ultra-shallow seismic-reflection data to image the near-surface stratigraphy of a Kansas River point bar. We were successful in identifying a discontinuous clay layer and the top of the saturated zone at depths of 0.95 and 1.4 m. Seismic walkaway data collected using various .22-caliber ammunition show that decreased source energy is necessary to generate higher frequencies and prevent clipping of critical near-offset traces needed to identify ultra-shallow reflections. The seismic reflections exhibited average normal moveout velocities of 180-195 m/s with dominant frequencies of 200-450 Hz. Coincident subsurface features were also imaged using 200-MHz ground-penetrating radar. This study presents the shallowest seismic reflection from the top of the saturated zone reported in the literature to date and further demonstrates the potential of using seismic-reflection methods for ultra-shallow imaging of the subsurface as a stand-alone tool or in conjunction with other high-resolution geophysical techniques. JF - Geophysical Research Letters AU - Sloan, Steven D AU - Tsoflias, Georgios P AU - Steeples, Don W Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 EP - Citation L07405 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 37 IS - 7 SN - 0094-8276, 0094-8276 KW - United States KW - seismic profiles KW - geophysical surveys KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - geophysical methods KW - radar methods KW - electromagnetic waves KW - reflection methods KW - frequency KW - seismic methods KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - shallow depth KW - saturated zone KW - normal moveout KW - Kansas KW - ultra-shallow seismic reflection KW - surveys KW - hydrodynamics KW - geophysical profiles KW - Kansas River KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759303761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Ultra-shallow+seismic+imaging+of+the+top+of+the+saturated+zone&rft.au=Sloan%2C+Steven+D%3BTsoflias%2C+Georgios+P%3BSteeples%2C+Don+W&rft.aulast=Sloan&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Research+Letters&rft.issn=00948276&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2010GL043034 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 11 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map, sects. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GPRLAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; electromagnetic waves; frequency; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; ground water; ground-penetrating radar; hydrodynamics; Kansas; Kansas River; normal moveout; radar methods; reflection methods; saturated zone; seismic methods; seismic profiles; shallow depth; surveys; ultra-shallow seismic reflection; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043034 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 76 SOUTH MISSION ROAD TO INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 758977898; 14619 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to a 5.2-mile segment of State Route 76 (SR-76) from South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. Within the project limits, SR-76 is currently a conventional highway with two lanes, nonstandard shoulders, and signalized at-grade intersections. Traffic on the route is over capacity and the highway is subject to congestion and travel delays. The project area consists of open space; agricultural fields; avocado and citrus groves; horse breeding and training facilities; horse pastures; scattered commercial developments; and some residential properties. The San Luis Rey River, which runs parallel and to the south of the existing SR-76 alignment, supports several areas of riparian habitat that are considered important for the preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife. Development within the study area is limited to a large extent by the large floodplain area of the San Luis Rey River Valley and upland areas to the north and south, which are mostly built-out with large-lot homes. The project area also includes the southern side of the San Luis Rey River Valley along the southern edge of the floodplain of the San Luis Rey River, as well as the floodplain itself. The proposed project would widen and realign SR-76 from two to four lanes and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange within the communities of Bonsall and Fallbrook. A second park and ride facility would be constructed along SR-76 between Old Highway 395 and the southbound I-15 on-ramp with access from Old Highway 395. Additionally, the project would widen the SR-76/I-15 separation and upgrade the interchange on and off-ramps with the option of adding inner loops to create a partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition to a No Build alternative, this draft EIS evaluates two build alternatives: the Existing Alignment Alternative and the Southern Alignment Alternative. Each would construct SR-76 from South Mission Road to just east of I-15 as a four-lane facility and would have two 12-foot-wide eastbound lanes and two 12-foot-wide westbound lanes. Each alternative would require channelization lanes in some locations to improve intersection operations. Signalized intersections would occur at specific locations for local access. The eastbound and westbound lanes would be separated by a varying width median (29-foot typical width). There would be a 5-foot-wide minimum paved inside shoulder and an 8-foot-wide paved outside shoulder in each direction. The outside shoulders would serve the uses of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency parking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over existing levels of service, improve travel times within the corridor, and maintain the area as an effective link in the interregional movement of people and goods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Southern Alignment Alternative would result in one full property acquisition and multiple partial property acquisitions. The Vessels Stallion Farm would be displaced and the character and scale of the area would be noticeably compromised by introducing a new transportation corridor into a largely undeveloped area. These impacts, combined with extensive landform modification and vegetation removal, would result in substantially reduced visual quality and character. New bridges spanning the river in two locations would have a pronounced negative impact on mature riparian vegetation along the riverbed and the open river valley. The arroyo toad, Southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher could be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100347, 582 pages and maps, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-10-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+STATE+ROUTE+76+SOUTH+MISSION+ROAD+TO+INTERSTATE+15+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826976; 14181-100050_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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826970; 14181-100050_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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826788; 14181-100050_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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826782; 14181-100050_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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826780; 14181-100050_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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Challenges and successes in using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for measurements of tungsten in environmental water and soil samples AN - 754564068; 13389316 AB - Military small arms ranges in the United States have been used for munitions training with tungsten rounds, which are comprised of powdered tungsten (W) pressed together with polymeric binders. As a result, W has been introduced into surface soils. The environmental and human health effects of W remain open questions. The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for environmental monitoring, site assessments, and cleanup of small arms ranges. This work requires routine measurements of tungsten in natural waters and soils. However, the existing sample preparation and analytical procedures were not specifically developed with W in mind for environmental analysis. Our work suggests modification of existing metal sample preparation and analytical procedures are necessary to accurately quantify W in environmental media. Our group has been actively conducting W measurements using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), both with quadrupole and sector field ICPMS systems. We have used heavy rare earth elements and iridium as internal standards. For soils, the great majority of the W from small arms can be dissolved using acid leaching with HNO3-H3PO4 mixtures; more rigorous preparations with fusion or HF digestions can also be used. In ICPMS analysis, the largest challenge involves dealing with the significant carry-over and memory of W in sample introduction systems. This ultimately limits measurement capabilities, particularly at sub-kg L-1 levels. With careful attention to the sample and standards' matrix constituents, and proper washout time, successful analysis is possible and ICPMS is clearly the preferred technique. A commercially available fluoropolymer sample introduction system exhibits significantly improved memory characteristics. JF - International Journal of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Ketterer, Michael E AU - Bednar, Anthony J AU - Koenig, Mark R AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755, USA Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - Jan 2010 SP - 773 EP - 783 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN UK VL - 90 IS - 10 SN - 0306-7319, 0306-7319 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Assessments KW - USA KW - Mass spectrometry KW - Tungsten KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - M2 551.508:Instruments (551.508) KW - ENA 15:Renewable Resources-Terrestrial UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754564068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Challenges+and+successes+in+using+inductively+coupled+plasma+mass+spectrometry+for+measurements+of+tungsten+in+environmental+water+and+soil+samples&rft.au=Clausen%2C+Jay+L%3BKetterer%2C+Michael+E%3BBednar%2C+Anthony+J%3BKoenig%2C+Mark+R&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=773&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.issn=03067319&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F03067310903267323 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mass spectrometry; Tungsten; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03067310903267323 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Frequency of extreme storms based on beach erosion at Northern Assateague Island, Maryland AN - 744618324; 12912733 AB - This paper examines morphologic response to storms at northern Assateague Island, MD. Time series of hindcast waves and water level were input to drive the SBEACH beach erosion and overwash numerical model to estimate beach response, groundtruthed by documentation and available evidence of storms that caused significant morphologic change at the site. The analysis proceeded through application of the generalized Pareto distribution, with tropical and extratropical storms treated as separate populations. Five storm-related parameters were examined and correlated with volume of beach erosion: peak surge, peak water level (surge plus tide), storm duration, and two new parameters called the integrated hydrograph and the integrated significant wave height, "integrated" referring to the product of time and water level or wave height above a threshold. Storm-induced erosion was found to be only weakly correlated or not correlated with the individual parameters of peak storm surge and peak water level. For tropical storms, erosion is strongly correlated with integrated wave height, and to a lesser extent with storm duration and integrated hydrograph, whereas for extratropical storms, erosion is found to be significantly correlated with the integrated hydrograph and to a lesser extent with integrated wave height and storm duration. JF - Shore & Beach AU - Munger, S AU - Kraus, N C AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 3 EP - 11 VL - 78 IS - 2 SN - 0037-4237, 0037-4237 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - shores KW - Hydrograph analysis KW - Shores KW - Time series analysis KW - Storms KW - Water levels KW - Islands KW - Numerical models KW - Hydrographs KW - Extratropical cyclones KW - Marine KW - Beaches KW - Mathematical models KW - time series analysis KW - Surges KW - Wave processes on beaches KW - Brackish KW - Beach Erosion KW - Water Level KW - Significant wave height KW - ANW, USA, Maryland KW - Tides KW - Wave Height KW - Erosion KW - water levels KW - Storm surges KW - Wave hindcasting KW - Wave height KW - Beach erosion KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - Q2 09271:Coastal morphology KW - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744618324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Shore+%26+Beach&rft.atitle=Frequency+of+extreme+storms+based+on+beach+erosion+at+Northern+Assateague+Island%2C+Maryland&rft.au=Munger%2C+S%3BKraus%2C+N+C&rft.aulast=Munger&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shore+%26+Beach&rft.issn=00374237&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Mathematical models; Storm surges; Wave hindcasting; Wave height; Wave processes on beaches; Significant wave height; Beach erosion; Hydrograph analysis; Erosion; Numerical models; Time series analysis; Storms; Extratropical cyclones; shores; Beaches; Islands; water levels; time series analysis; Tides; Surges; Shores; Hydrographs; Beach Erosion; Water Level; Wave Height; ANW, USA, Maryland; Brackish; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling and analysis of the response of a triaxial, frequency-domain electromagnetic induction sensor to a buried linear conductor AN - 742915852; 2010-041863 AB - This paper presents analytical modeling results for a triaxial frequency-domain electromagnetic-induction (EMI) sensor over a homogeneous earth containing a long linear conductor. Although the conductor studied is intended to represent an underground wire or pipe, it can represent any subsurface, linear geologic structure that can channel current. Treating the sensor transmitter as a vertical magnetic dipole, the model combines the well-known solution for the magnetic field arising from the interaction with the earth with the solution for the induced magnetic field from the excited subsurface conductor. Expressions for the three components of the magnetic field at an arbitrary point above the earth are presented. Two types of coupled, moving transmitter-receiver configurations (coaxial and coplanar) were considered, and the model is sufficiently flexible to allow for many other sensor variations to be studied. Characteristics of the sensor signals were explored through several parametric modeling studies that demonstrate the sensitivity of the signals to transmitter frequency, earth conductivity, conductor depth, sensor geometry, and crossing angle. Using simple relationships developed from analysis of the sensor signals, key parameters such as conductor depth and orientation can be estimated. The ability of the model to predict and characterize sensor output should prove helpful in distinguishing between geologic features and man-made underground infrastructure. These modeling results also are expected to facilitate frequency-domain EMI data analysis and interpretation, sensor design and operation, and the development of detection and classification algorithms. JF - Geophysics AU - McKenna, Sean P AU - McKenna, Jason R Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - January 2010 SP - F1 EP - F14 PB - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK VL - 75 IS - 1 SN - 0016-8033, 0016-8033 KW - electrical conductivity KW - apparent resistivity KW - numerical models KW - data acquisition KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - mathematical models KW - magnetic field KW - frequency domain analysis KW - theoretical studies KW - electromagnetic methods KW - algorithms KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742915852?accountid=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=Geophysics&rft.atitle=Modeling+and+analysis+of+the+response+of+a+triaxial%2C+frequency-domain+electromagnetic+induction+sensor+to+a+buried+linear+conductor&rft.au=McKenna%2C+Sean+P%3BMcKenna%2C+Jason+R&rft.aulast=McKenna&rft.aufirst=Sean&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=F1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysics&rft.issn=00168033&rft_id=info:doi/10.1190%2F1.3267876 L2 - http://library.seg.org/journal/gpysa7 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 N1 - CODEN - GPYSA7 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; apparent resistivity; data acquisition; data processing; electrical conductivity; electromagnetic methods; frequency domain analysis; geophysical methods; magnetic field; mathematical models; numerical models; theoretical studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3267876 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Probability of local liquefaction of saturated sands in half-space domains under a train of surface point explosions AN - 21327487; 11932782 AB - The probability of liquefaction in saturated sand deposits subjected to a train of shear stress pulses propagating from a point blast source applied at the boundary surface of the elastic medium is investigated. The load effect is evaluated in approximate closed form using three-dimensional tensorial mathematical physics in polar cylindrical coordinates. The adopted criterion of liquefaction has been experimentally verified both in the laboratory and in the field when continua of saturated sands were subjected to equivalent cyclic shear stress due to earthquake excitation. A first-order second-moment technique for the probabilistic assessment of the liquefaction potential in practical situations is developed and implemented in a computer program. Parametric studies are conducted to examine the sensitivity of results to the second-moment characterization of intervening key physical quantities. JF - Shock and Vibration AU - de Bjar, Luis A AD - Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, ATTN: CEERD-GS-M (Bldg. 5008), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 1 EP - 19 PB - IOS Press, Nieuwe Hemweg 6B Amsterdam 1013 BG The Netherlands VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 1070-9622, 1070-9622 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21327487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Shock+and+Vibration&rft.atitle=Probability+of+local+liquefaction+of+saturated+sands+in+half-space+domains+under+a+train+of+surface+point+explosions&rft.au=de+Bjar%2C+Luis+A&rft.aulast=de+Bjar&rft.aufirst=Luis&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shock+and+Vibration&rft.issn=10709622&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Nitrogen retention in a floodplain backwater of the upper Mississippi River (USA) AN - 21264149; 11833615 AB - Backwaters connected to large rivers retain nitrate and may play an important role in reducing downstream loading to coastal marine environments. A summer nitrogen (N) inflow-outflow budget was examined for a flow-regulated backwater of the upper Mississippi River in conjunction with laboratory estimates of sediment ammonium and nitrate fluxes, organic N mineralization, nitrification, and denitrification to provide further insight into N retention processes. External N loading was overwhelmingly dominated by nitrate and 54% of the input was retained (137mgm super(-2) day super(-1)). Ammonium and dissolved organic N were exported from the backwater (14 and 9mgm super(-2)day super(-1), respectively). Nitrate influx to sediment increased as a function of increasing initial nitrate concentration in the overlying water. Rates were greater under anoxic versus oxic conditions. Ammonium effluxes from sediment were 26.7 and 50.6mgm super(-2) day super(-1) under oxic and anoxic conditions, respectively. Since anoxia inhibited nitrification, the difference between ammonium anoxic-oxic fluxes approximated a nitrification rate of 29.1mgm super(-2) day super(-1). Organic N mineralization was 64mgm super(-2)da y super(-1). Denitrification, estimated from regression relationships between oxic nitrate influx versus initial nitrate concentration and a summer lakewide mean nitrate concentration of 1.27mgl super(-1), was 94mgm super(-2)da y super(-1). Denitrification was equivalent to only 57% of the retained nitrate, suggesting that another portion was assimilated by biota. The high sediment organic N mineralization and ammonium efflux rate coupled with the occurrence of ammonium export from the system suggested a possible link between biotic assimilation of nitrate, mineralization, and export. JF - Aquatic Sciences AU - James, William F AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, W500 Eau Galle Dam Road, Spring Valley, WI, 54767, USA, william.f.james@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/01// PY - 2010 DA - Jan 2010 SP - 61 EP - 69 PB - Springer-Verlag (Heidelberg), Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 72 IS - 1 SN - 1015-1621, 1015-1621 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Ecology Abstracts KW - Nitrate KW - Backwater KW - Backwaters KW - Freshwater KW - Mineralization KW - Denitrification KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Sediment transport KW - Rivers KW - Ammonium KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Nitrates KW - Sediments KW - Anoxia KW - Anoxic sediments KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Flood plains KW - Nitrification KW - Nitrogen KW - Q2 09187:Geochemistry of sediments KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - SW 7060:Research facilities UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21264149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Aquatic+Sciences&rft.atitle=Nitrogen+retention+in+a+floodplain+backwater+of+the+upper+Mississippi+River+%28USA%29&rft.au=James%2C+William+F&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Sciences&rft.issn=10151621&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00027-009-0113-3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-08-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Anoxic sediments; Rivers; Sediment chemistry; Flood plains; Nitrification; Backwaters; Sediment transport; Mineralization; Ammonium; Nitrate; Denitrification; Sediments; Anoxia; Nitrogen; Backwater; Nitrates; Sediment Contamination; North America, Mississippi R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00027-009-0113-3 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Full-Scale Field Testing for Injected Foam Stabilization of Portland Cement Concrete Repairs AN - 1671234469; 14128556 AB - A series of foam-injected repairs was performed on a portland cement concrete (PCC) test section at the U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Repairs consisted of uncompacted backfill overlaid by a 9-in. rapid-setting cementitious cap. A series of injection tubes was inserted through the cap into the uncompacted debris backfill, and a two-component rigid polyurethane foam was injected into this backfill. The test matrix compared the performance of three different repairs using various volumes of injected foam. Afourth repair was constructed without injected foam as a control item. Three hours after cap construction, the repairs underwent simulated aircraft traffic with an F-15E load cart. The performance of the four repairs was measured by passes to failure. The results of traffic testing were used to evaluate foam-injection technology for rapid repair of PCC pavements. The performances of foaminjected repairs were also compared with poured foam and traditional full-depth backfill repairs, each capped with rapid-setting materials. Comparisons were made about pavement performance, costs, and total duration required for installing the repair. Results showed that injection of excessive foam was detrimental to the repair surface, because it induced cracking before traffic application, and could lead to premature development of foreign object damage. However, repairs using moderate amounts of foam and pure backfill sustained the required traffic levels, defined by the research sponsor, of 200 passes within 4 h of initiating the pavement repair. For cost and repair duration, those repairs that did not include foam were more effective. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Priddy, Lucy P AU - Jersey, Sarah R AU - Reese, Cody M AD - U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 24 EP - 33 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2155 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Ceramic Abstracts/World Ceramics Abstracts (WC); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Costs KW - Pavements KW - Portland cements KW - Traffic flow KW - Backfill KW - Traffic engineering KW - Foams KW - Repairing KW - Maintenance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671234469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Full-Scale+Field+Testing+for+Injected+Foam+Stabilization+of+Portland+Cement+Concrete+Repairs&rft.au=Priddy%2C+Lucy+P%3BJersey%2C+Sarah+R%3BReese%2C+Cody+M&rft.aulast=Priddy&rft.aufirst=Lucy&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=2155&rft.issue=&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2155-03 L2 - http://trb.metapress.com/content/r0v64lrw55310756/?p=803b163fc894430e9751214d02d7cb79&pi=2 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2155-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16393417; 14181 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. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project 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. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three 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 SES Solar Two 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 renewable 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 approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling Erosion of an Unlined Spillway Chute Cut in Rock AN - 1551634995; 14218788 AB - Discharges up to 1700 m super(3)/s that lasted 21 days caused extensive erosion of the spillway chute excavated in rock at Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas. Nearly 300 000 m3 of shale and limestone were eroded from the unlined chute resulting in a series of escarpments ranging in height from 1.20 to about 8 m. An empirical mathematical model, similar to a US Department of Agriculture model was developed for geologic conditions at Tuttle Creek Lake. This site specific model was used to evaluate the extent of erosion anticipated for future events and, based on this evaluation, to design the spillway repair. The model provides conservative results since it was conceived in such a manner as to over predict erosion. Initial attempts to generalize its use provided questionable results, but similar site specific procedures may be used in other locations for future events. AU - Perlea, Vlad AU - Mathews, David AU - Walberg, Francke AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 530 EP - 539 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Erosion KW - Spillways KW - Rocks KW - Kansas KW - Limestone KW - Soil erosion KW - Streams KW - Evaluation KW - Lakes KW - Modelling KW - Mathematical models KW - USA, Kansas KW - Creek KW - Model Studies KW - Escarpments KW - Chutes KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1551634995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=Modeling+Erosion+of+an+Unlined+Spillway+Chute+Cut+in+Rock&rft.au=Perlea%2C+Vlad%3BMathews%2C+David%3BWalberg%2C+Francke&rft.aulast=Perlea&rft.aufirst=Vlad&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=530&rft.isbn=9780784411476&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41147%28392%2951 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2014-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mathematical models; Escarpments; Soil erosion; Creek; Modelling; Evaluation; Lakes; Erosion; Limestone; Rocks; Spillways; Chutes; Streams; Model Studies; USA, Kansas DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41147(392)51 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Processes effecting sediment transfer across the land-sea interface and resulting shelf stratigraphy AN - 1549619000; 2014-056640 AB - The land-sea interface is a sensitive, dynamic filter that modulates the transfer of sediment from terrestrial to marine environments. The degree of filtering is a function of the complex interactions between sediment supply, sea level, physical energy and tectonics. Understanding the processes influencing the efficiency of sediment segregation at this interface will yield insight on the processes that create stratigraphy on adjacent continental shelves. We present examples of two land-sea interfaces from tectonically active, regressive settings on the North Island of New Zealand: (1) the inner shelf off of the Waiapu River, and (2) Poverty Bay, adjacent to the Waipaoa River. An extensive array of geophysical, sedimentological, and hydrodynamic data are used to quantitatively assess the efficiency of sediment segregation, deposition, and subsequent resuspension and off-shore transport at the land-sea interface. The two systems share several similarities with regards to the processes controlling the efficiency of the land-sea filter, including sea level, physical energy and tectonics. Results from Poverty Bay indicate that while the system is occasionally overwhelmed by fine-grained sediment deposition resulting in the preservation of event beds near the surface, more often the system efficiently segregates sediment, preserving little fine-grained sediment. Both long-term floodplain stratigraphy and stratigraphic models indicate this has been the case for the Waipaoa system for the last several thousand years, despite a recent 4-5 fold increase in sediment supply. In contrast, results from the Waiapu show a shift from efficient to inefficient sediment segregation at the land-sea interface over the same time-frame, with significant modern capture of fine-grained material primarily as event layers on the inner shelf (16-34% of the modern, fine-grained budget). This suggests that in Poverty Bay, an increase in sediment supply has been modulated by the other filtering processes, resulting in consistently efficient segregation and bypassing. Conversely, on the Waiapu inner shelf, the increase in sediment supply has overwhelmed the modulating effects of the other processes, changing the behavior of the land-sea filter and thus altering the type of stratigraphy formed. The influence of these differing filters is evaluated in the context of the effects on the stratigraphy farther offshore, where preservation over the long-term is more likely to occur. JF - Abstracts: Annual Meeting - American Association of Petroleum Geologists AU - Wadman, Heidi M AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 PB - American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Society for Sedimentary Geology, Tulsa, OK VL - 2010 KW - segregation KW - lithostratigraphy KW - Australasia KW - sediment transport KW - grain size KW - sedimentation KW - sediment supply KW - nearshore sedimentation KW - Waiapu River KW - North Island KW - transport KW - Poverty Bay KW - inner shelf KW - sorting KW - coastal environment KW - depositional environment KW - continental shelf KW - New Zealand KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1549619000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts%3A+Annual+Meeting+-+American+Association+of+Petroleum+Geologists&rft.atitle=Processes+effecting+sediment+transfer+across+the+land-sea+interface+and+resulting+shelf+stratigraphy&rft.au=Wadman%2C+Heidi+M%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Wadman&rft.aufirst=Heidi&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=2010&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts%3A+Annual+Meeting+-+American+Association+of+Petroleum+Geologists&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/pdf/2010/annual/abstracts/ndx_wadman.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - AAPG 2010 annual convention & exhibition N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Last updated - 2014-07-31 N1 - CODEN - #06983 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Australasia; coastal environment; continental shelf; depositional environment; grain size; inner shelf; lithostratigraphy; nearshore sedimentation; New Zealand; North Island; Poverty Bay; sediment supply; sediment transport; sedimentation; segregation; sorting; transport; Waiapu River ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A Watershed Modeling Tool, HEC-WAT AN - 1430857661; 14142179 AB - For the past few years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center (CEIWR-HEC) has been developing the Watershed Analysis Tool (HEC-WAT). This software was created to help Project Delivery Teams (PDT's) conduct watershed and water resources studies in an integrated, comprehensive and systems based analyses. The degree of coordination across disciplines, offices and agencies, for these complex studies is often difficult to complete. The PDT must come to a consensus on the definition of the problems, issues, and opportunities and continue with the definition of the various models, events and analyses to determine impacts so that appropriate decisions may be made. This paper will discuss the development, features and capabilities of HEC-WAT and will also document several applications. In addition, a new feature will be discussed that will eventually allow HEC-WAT to run a Monte Carlo analyses so that a robust risk analysis can be performed. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Dunn, Christopher N AU - Baker, Penni R AD - Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, CA 95616. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 1101 EP - 1112 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Watersheds KW - Hydrologic models KW - Monte Carlo method KW - Land Use KW - Resource management KW - Climate change KW - Statistical analysis KW - Water resources KW - Watershed Management KW - Freshwater KW - Engineering KW - Hydrologic Models KW - River basin management KW - Modelling KW - Land use KW - Risk KW - USA KW - Resource development KW - Water Resources KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1430857661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=A+Watershed+Modeling+Tool%2C+HEC-WAT&rft.au=Dunn%2C+Christopher+N%3BBaker%2C+Penni+R&rft.aulast=Dunn&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1101&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2999 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Climate change; Statistical analysis; Water resources; Resource development; Watersheds; River basin management; Land use; Modelling; Land Use; Risk; Engineering; Hydrologic Models; Watershed Management; Water Resources; USA; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)99 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Multi-Objective Management and Planning for Urban Watersheds AN - 1430851989; 14142144 AB - Cumulative impacts and losses occur in watersheds as humans develop them. Cumulative losses to the environment occur, and cumulative impacts occur to constituents in the downstream part of the watersheds in terms of flood hazards. The paper reviews how multi-objective management is fundamental to urban watershed management and can address cumulative effects from development. The paper encourages the use of incentives and established processes to address the cumulative effects, specifically both the basic technical and organizational processes for developing urban watershed planning. Technical processes for watershed environmental planning are introduced for comparing green solutions, including best management practices and stream corridor rehabilitation. The paper demonstrates how habitat units may be used to maximize the net benefits for multipurpose projects. The basic steps for these processes clarify watershed planning work and strengthen collaboration, which is part of building strong partnerships in our Nation's watersheds. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Rast, Brian AD - Member American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), Planning Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Richard Bolling Federal Building, Suite 529, 601 East 12 super(th) Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 702 EP - 720 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Urban areas KW - Watersheds KW - Stormwater management KW - Urban Watersheds KW - Resource management KW - Climate change KW - Watershed Management KW - Freshwater KW - Streams KW - Environmental factors KW - Floods KW - Planning KW - Downstream KW - Corridor KW - River basin management KW - Rehabilitation KW - Land use KW - Stream KW - National planning KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1430851989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Multi-Objective+Management+and+Planning+for+Urban+Watersheds&rft.au=Rast%2C+Brian&rft.aulast=Rast&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=702&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2964 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Stream; Climate change; Corridor; Watersheds; Environmental factors; River basin management; Land use; National planning; Urban Watersheds; Rehabilitation; Floods; Planning; Downstream; Watershed Management; Streams; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)64 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Challenges and Successes of Tidal Wetlands Restoration in Jamaica Bay, New York AN - 1430848072; 14142112 AB - Jamaica Bay, located within the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, New York City, covers 67.3 square kilometers and opens into the Atlantic Ocean via Rockaway Inlet. In the early 1900's, Jamaica Bay was an extensive estuarine ecosystem that sustained large expanses of salt marsh. Over the last century, urban and industrial development has modified the natural environment surrounding the marsh islands through activities such as dredging and filling, construction, pollution, and over-harvesting or eradication of native plant and animal species. Based on aerial photography interpretation of Jamaica Bay, the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC), estimated that approximately 567 hectares of tidal salt marsh have been lost since 1924, with the rate of loss rapidly increasing in recent years. At Elders Point between 1994 and 1999 an estimated 89 hectares of salt marsh were lost at a rate of 17.8 hectares per year. It is estimated that if this trend continues, all remaining salt marsh within Jamaica Bay may be lost over the next three decades. Our work involves a multi-agency group led by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to restore the tidal wetlands of Elders Point East and consists of the placement of fill, regrading the site to appropriate elevations for the target community, and planting with native coastal plant species. This design was based on the approximate extent of the 1974 marsh coverage as reported by NYSDEC. Restoration efforts have included extensive monitoring to ensure worthwhile ecological goals have been provided and are a long term sustainable benefit to Jamaica Bay. Challenges that need to be overcome include compaction, subsidence, and erosion of placed material. Additionally, accretion of material and plant survival will require monitoring. The sustainability and plant survival will be an ongoing challenge with physical, chemical, and biological stresses present in the bay. Monitoring data to date have indicated that the project has provided much of the anticipated benefits with minimal erosion or deposition of sediment and Spartina alterniflora has exhibited a growth rate consistent with the control marsh at JoCo. The sustainability of Elders Point East will have important implications regarding future salt marsh restoration efforts (e.g., Elders Point West) and likely serve as a benchmark for similar projects. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Messaros, Roy C AU - Rafferty, Patricia S AU - Woolley, Gail S AD - Primary author, contact/presenter, Coastal and Hydraulic Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2037, New York, NY 10278-0090. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 343 EP - 363 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Wetlands KW - Restoration KW - New York KW - Bays KW - Resource management KW - Survival KW - Watershed Management KW - Freshwater KW - Compaction KW - Brackishwater environment KW - Sedimentation KW - River basin management KW - ANW, USA, New York, Long I., Jamaica Bay KW - Salt Marshes KW - Brackish KW - Marshes KW - ANW, USA, New York, New York City KW - A, Atlantic KW - Salt marshes KW - Habitat improvement KW - Deposition KW - Monitoring KW - Benefits KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1430848072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Challenges+and+Successes+of+Tidal+Wetlands+Restoration+in+Jamaica+Bay%2C+New+York&rft.au=Messaros%2C+Roy+C%3BRafferty%2C+Patricia+S%3BWoolley%2C+Gail+S&rft.aulast=Messaros&rft.aufirst=Roy&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=343&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2932 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Salt marshes; Habitat improvement; Brackishwater environment; Wetlands; Marshes; Sedimentation; Compaction; River basin management; Salt Marshes; Survival; Deposition; Watershed Management; Monitoring; Benefits; ANW, USA, New York, New York City; ANW, USA, New York, Long I., Jamaica Bay; A, Atlantic; Brackish; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)32 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Testing computational algorithms for unsaturated flow AN - 1351598324; 2013-040597 AB - The purpose of this work is to test different computational algorithms for unsaturated flow for accuracy and robustness by comparing computed results in a finite element program with analytical solutions. Because real-world problems are complex, testing codes for accuracy is often difficult. This is particularly true for flow in the vadose zone where Richards' equation is highly nonlinear. Recently, however, Tracy (Tracy WRRJ 2006) [1] (Tracy JHYD 2007) [2] has derived analytical solutions for a box-shaped flow region that is initially dry until water is applied to the top of the region. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional versions of these solutions for both steady-state and transient flow are available to be used in the testing process. Numerical precision and nonlinear solver robustness were investigated for varying degrees of nonlinearity by varying the Gardner alpha parameter. As alpha was increased, three ways of modeling relative hydraulic conductivity inside individual finite elements and two versions of the nonlinear solver were tested using three different ways to measure the error. The results of these tests are given in this paper. JF - The Open Hydrology Journal AU - Tracy, F T Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 227 EP - 235 PB - Bentham Science Publishers, Bentham Open VL - 4 KW - numerical models KW - three-dimensional models KW - unsaturated zone KW - equations KW - preferential flow KW - simulation KW - two-dimensional models KW - ground water KW - finite element analysis KW - transient phenomena KW - Richards equation KW - movement KW - steady-state processes KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1351598324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Open+Hydrology+Journal&rft.atitle=Testing+computational+algorithms+for+unsaturated+flow&rft.au=Tracy%2C+F+T&rft.aulast=Tracy&rft.aufirst=F&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=&rft.spage=227&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Open+Hydrology+Journal&rft.issn=1874-3781&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.bentham.org/open/tohydj/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 10 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - equations; finite element analysis; ground water; hydraulic conductivity; movement; numerical models; preferential flow; Richards equation; simulation; steady-state processes; three-dimensional models; transient phenomena; two-dimensional models; unsaturated zone ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Watershed Study of the Iowa-Cedar River Basin AN - 1093462037; 14142177 AB - Historic flooding within the Iowa-Cedar River Basin, in 2008, has emphasized the need for an integrated approach to watershed-based planning and management of the basin. This paper provides a description of the emerging watershed study currently being developed by the Rock Island District, Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the state of Iowa, local governments, and private organizations. The purpose of the Corps planning study effort is to formulate a comprehensive watershed plan and process for interagency collaboration to address water resource and related land resource problems and opportunities in the Iowa - Cedar River Basin in the interests of increasing social and economic value, increasing ecological integrity, and managing future flood risk. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Landwehr, Kevin J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 1078 EP - 1088 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Watersheds KW - River basins KW - Iowa KW - River Basins KW - Resource management KW - Local Governments KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Land Resources KW - Floods KW - Planning KW - Regional planning KW - River basin management KW - Risk KW - USA, Iowa KW - Water management KW - USA, Iowa, Cedar R. KW - Flooding KW - National planning KW - Water Resources KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1093462037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Watershed+Study+of+the+Iowa-Cedar+River+Basin&rft.au=Landwehr%2C+Kevin+J&rft.aulast=Landwehr&rft.aufirst=Kevin&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1078&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2997 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Water management; Flooding; Water resources; Regional planning; River basins; Watersheds; River basin management; National planning; Land Resources; Risk; River Basins; Local Governments; Floods; Planning; Water Resources; USA, Iowa; USA, Iowa, Cedar R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)97 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Navigation, Flood Risk Management, and Mississippi River Ecosystem Rehabilitation AN - 1093461990; 14142119 AB - The Mississippi River is one of the world's great rivers and is the only river in the United States to be formally recognized by Congress as both a nationally significant ecosystem and commercial navigation system. The river has a long and colorful history and has played a significant role in shaping the region's social and economic development. However, the Mississippi River is not a single homogeneous unit. From its source in northern Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico one can identify at least five distinct Mississippi Rivers based on geomorphology and hydraulics. Concomitant with these differences in the river are variations in navigation and flood risk management that result in divergent river management strategies. Levees, reservoirs, floodways, pools and locks are some of the different structures that are in place on various reaches of the river to address the concerns of flood risk management and navigation. The effects of river regulation, floodplain development and watershed modifications present constant challenges to ecosystem rehabilitation along the Mississippi River. Consequently, floodplain and wetland restoration must be developed within the context of the potentially different directions that navigation and flood management have taken the river. Because the Mississippi system varies widely in hydraulics and hydrology from source to the Gulf, ecosystem rehabilitation likewise takes different forms in different regions along the river. Moreover, the goals, targets and metrics of river rehabilitation are not constant across the entire river system. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - DuBowy, Paul J AD - Mississippi River and Tributaries Regional Technical Center, Mississippi Valley Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CEMVD-PD-WM, Vicksburg, MS 39181. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 431 EP - 442 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Navigation KW - Flood plains KW - Risk management KW - Mississippi River KW - Ecosystems KW - Rehabilitation KW - Hydraulics KW - Resource management KW - Freshwater KW - Gulfs KW - Risks KW - Geomorphology KW - Floods KW - Wetlands KW - River basin management KW - Rivers KW - Fluvial morphology KW - USA, Indiana, Great R. KW - USA, Minnesota KW - ASW, Mexico Gulf KW - Flood Plains KW - Risk KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09123:Conservation KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1093461990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Navigation%2C+Flood+Risk+Management%2C+and+Mississippi+River+Ecosystem+Rehabilitation&rft.au=DuBowy%2C+Paul+J&rft.aulast=DuBowy&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=431&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2939 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Fluvial morphology; Resource management; Geomorphology; Flood plains; Floods; Wetlands; Navigation; River basin management; Risks; Flood Plains; Rivers; Hydraulics; Risk; Ecosystems; Rehabilitation; Gulfs; ASW, Mexico Gulf; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Indiana, Great R.; USA, Minnesota; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)39 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Innovative Methods of Integrating Conservation Planning Methods, Conceptual Ecological Models, USACE Planning Requirements, and NEPA to Develop a Comprehensive Plan: Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan Case Study AN - 1093461939; 14142116 AB - The Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan/EIS (MRERP/EIS) is among the largest basin-wide restoration planning efforts in the US, and represents an unparalleled opportunity and challenge. The aim of the effort is to identify restoration, mitigation and recovery goals for the Missouri River and its tributaries, ecological systems and native species for the coming 30-50 years. The complexity of the project and its geographic scale present numerous challenges, among which is the need to provide real engagement opportunities for the interested public and stakeholders, including members of 29 basin tribes, 8 states and dozens of federal, state and local agencies. To address this challenge, a team of planners representing multiple backgrounds and approaches has developed the MRERP roadmap, which incorporates tested and innovative techniques to ensure procedural and legal requirements are met through a transparent, objective, and scientifically based planning approach. The roadmap integrates NEPA principles and practices, the USACE 6-Step Planning Process, the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, and the lessons and best practices of previous large-scale ecosystem restoration planning efforts. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Sparks, Karla AU - Gagnon, Paula AU - Nelson-Stastny, Wayne AU - Hoagland, Curtis AD - USACE, Environmental Resource Specialist, 601 E. 12 super(th) Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 397 EP - 408 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Ecosystems KW - Missouri River KW - Restoration KW - Case studies KW - Resource management KW - Freshwater KW - Planning KW - Regional planning KW - Tributaries KW - River basin management KW - Rivers KW - Testing Procedures KW - USA, Missouri R. KW - Case Studies KW - Model Studies KW - Legal aspects KW - Conservation KW - Standards KW - Governments KW - Legislation KW - National planning KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1093461939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Innovative+Methods+of+Integrating+Conservation+Planning+Methods%2C+Conceptual+Ecological+Models%2C+USACE+Planning+Requirements%2C+and+NEPA+to+Develop+a+Comprehensive+Plan%3A+Missouri+River+Ecosystem+Restoration+Plan+Case+Study&rft.au=Sparks%2C+Karla%3BGagnon%2C+Paula%3BNelson-Stastny%2C+Wayne%3BHoagland%2C+Curtis&rft.aulast=Sparks&rft.aufirst=Karla&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=397&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2936 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resource management; Legal aspects; Planning; Regional planning; Governments; River basin management; National planning; Legislation; Restoration; Testing Procedures; Rivers; Ecosystems; Case Studies; Conservation; Standards; Tributaries; Model Studies; USA, Missouri R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)36 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fish Passage Restoration and the NEPA Process: Balancing Environmental Considerations with Historical and Cultural Resources AN - 1014098213; 14142115 AB - Restoration of fish passage along our rivers and streams can improve the overall aquatic habitat and environmental conditions of our waterways by allowing migration and spawning of species currently blocked by dams. Fish passage can enhance the overall productivity of ecosystems by enabling anadromous fish to return to their previous spawning grounds. This, in turn, increases the system's food supply web for resident and migratory fish. Perhaps the most effective method of restoring fish passage is to remove the stream impediment and restore the channel to natural conditions. However, existing conditions such as the historical and cultural aspects of the dam, the chemical composition of built-up sediment behind the dam, and the potential for increased downstream flood hazard risk may influence the selection of a recommended plan. Restoring environmental balance to our nation's rivers may affect historic structures and archaeological sites. This can trigger state and federal historic preservation laws, and interest in preserving a piece of local history, as well as providing an opportunity for historic discovery (McClain, et al., 2008). So, how do you determine the best method of restoring fish passage for your project? Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Public Law (P.L.) 91-190 in 1970 to establish a national policy for the protection and maintenance of the environment. The law provided a process all federal agencies must follow in evaluating the potential impacts a project has on the environment. Following the NEPA process leads to the publication of an Environmental Assessment which contains a compilation of available data regarding the project, including public comments, that allows decision makers to make educated and informed decisions. This paper addresses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and how it served as the decision document in determining the best alternative to restore fish passage at the Woodland Dam. Specifically, the paper will address environmental considerations typical of urban streams and the historical considerations associated with modifying a dam originally constructed in the 1640's. Emphasis will be placed on the interagency coordination between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) and the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission (PHMC). We will focus on how issues are resolved concerning environmental benefits and impacts balanced against maintaining our historical and cultural resources. JF - Watershed Management 2010: Innovations in Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change AU - Eberle, Mark AU - Minnichbach, Nicole AU - Rourke, Erik AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Y1 - 2010///0, PY - 2010 DA - 0, 2010 SP - 388 EP - 396 KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Fish management KW - Restoration KW - Environmental issues KW - Rivers and streams KW - Fish Passages KW - Watershed Management KW - Freshwater KW - Streams KW - Environmental factors KW - Fishery policy KW - Dams KW - Environmental Policy KW - Rivers KW - Fishways KW - River discharge KW - Environmental Protection KW - Spawning KW - Channels KW - Habitat improvement KW - Legal aspects KW - USA, Pennsylvania KW - Migrations KW - Environmental conditions KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - Q1 08121:Law, policy, economics and social sciences KW - Q3 08587:Diseases of Cultured Organisms UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1014098213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.atitle=Fish+Passage+Restoration+and+the+NEPA+Process%3A+Balancing+Environmental+Considerations+with+Historical+and+Cultural+Resources&rft.au=Eberle%2C+Mark%3BMinnichbach%2C+Nicole%3BRourke%2C+Erik&rft.aulast=Eberle&rft.aufirst=Mark&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=388&rft.isbn=9780784411438&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Watershed+Management+2010%3A+Innovations+in+Watershed+Management+under+Land+Use+and+Climate+Change&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41148%28389%2935 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Fishery policy; Fishways; Habitat improvement; Legal aspects; Migrations; River discharge; Environmental conditions; Environmental factors; Streams; Channels; Rivers; Dams; Environmental Policy; Fish Passages; Environmental Protection; Watershed Management; Spawning; USA, Pennsylvania; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)35 ER -