TY - JOUR T1 - The life cycle of the policy for preventing road accidents: an empirical example of the policy for reducing drunk driving crashes in Taipei. AN - 66641033; 15203358 AB - The purpose of this paper is to examine the temporal variation of the effect of preventive policy on reducing traffic accidents. The life cycle theory was introduced to describe the safety effect of the intervening policy over time. Poisson regression models with dummy-based and time-based specifications were used to evaluate the effect of an intervening policy over an observation period following its implementation. The policy of "Criminal sanction for drunk driving (CSFDD)" in Taipei city was evaluated as an empirical example to determine whether the temporal variation of safety effect happened to the CSFDD policy. The study results showed that alcohol consumption, arresting the drunk driving offenders, and the implementation of the CSFDD were the significant factors affecting the rate of occurrence of fatal accidents involving drunk driving. The effect of the CSFDD policy appeared to be a rapid initial response followed by a lower rate of decay. The existence of the life cycle implies that employing different observation periods following the implementation of a specific policy to evaluate its performance may obtain different effects. The results of this study are crucial for policy evaluation. The effects of safety policy should be carefully interpreted in order to avoid misleading the relevant authorities in coming to the wrong conclusions and as such make the wrong decisions. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Ltd. JF - Accident; analysis and prevention AU - Chang, Hsin-Li AU - Yeh, Chun-Chih AD - Department of Transportation Technology and Management, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu 30050,Taiwan, R.O.C. hlchang@cc.nctu.edu.tw Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - September 2004 SP - 809 EP - 818 VL - 36 IS - 5 SN - 0001-4575, 0001-4575 KW - Index Medicus KW - Taiwan KW - Humans KW - Safety KW - Models, Statistical KW - Poisson Distribution KW - Automobile Driving KW - Law Enforcement KW - Alcoholic Intoxication KW - Public Policy KW - Accidents, Traffic -- prevention & control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66641033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Accident%3B+analysis+and+prevention&rft.atitle=The+life+cycle+of+the+policy+for+preventing+road+accidents%3A+an+empirical+example+of+the+policy+for+reducing+drunk+driving+crashes+in+Taipei.&rft.au=Chang%2C+Hsin-Li%3BYeh%2C+Chun-Chih&rft.aulast=Chang&rft.aufirst=Hsin-Li&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=809&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Accident%3B+analysis+and+prevention&rft.issn=00014575&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-09-30 N1 - Date created - 2004-06-18 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36435757; 11142 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Missouri River within the US 40/61 corridor to connect St. Charles and St. Louis counties, Missouri is proposed to supplement two other bridges providing crossings of the river in the area. The study corridor extends 2.1 miles from the Missouri Research Park overpass to Chesterfield Airport Road. The project would provide a new four-lane bridge upstream of the eastbound bridge and allow for continued use of both existing bridge. Improvements to the Chesterfield Airport Road interchange in St. Louis County and connections to the proposed one-way collector-distributor road system along US 40/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Six alternatives, including five new bridge alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in detail in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2-prime) would provide for construction of a new four-lane bridge upstream of the existing eastbound bridge to accommodate eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound bridge would be converted to provide for three lanes of westbound traffic. One lane of westbound traffic would continue to be accommodated on the existing westbound bridge. The new bridge would meet all navigational requirements of the US Coast Guard, including matching the existing bridge pier locations and maintaining adequate horizontal and vertical clearances. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $168.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would address problems related to the aging westbound bridge and provide system continuity between roadway improvements in both of the affected counties. The facility would support projected traffic demands and economic development trends in the area and improve safety along the US 40/61 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development on 19.3 acres would result in the encroachment on 7.2 acres of floodplain land, disturbance of two previously recorded archaeological sites, displacement of 1.5 acres of primarily wooded land within the Weldon Spring Conservation Area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040417, 181 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Preserves KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36378728; 11142-040417_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Missouri River within the US 40/61 corridor to connect St. Charles and St. Louis counties, Missouri is proposed to supplement two other bridges providing crossings of the river in the area. The study corridor extends 2.1 miles from the Missouri Research Park overpass to Chesterfield Airport Road. The project would provide a new four-lane bridge upstream of the eastbound bridge and allow for continued use of both existing bridge. Improvements to the Chesterfield Airport Road interchange in St. Louis County and connections to the proposed one-way collector-distributor road system along US 40/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Six alternatives, including five new bridge alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in detail in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2-prime) would provide for construction of a new four-lane bridge upstream of the existing eastbound bridge to accommodate eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound bridge would be converted to provide for three lanes of westbound traffic. One lane of westbound traffic would continue to be accommodated on the existing westbound bridge. The new bridge would meet all navigational requirements of the US Coast Guard, including matching the existing bridge pier locations and maintaining adequate horizontal and vertical clearances. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $168.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would address problems related to the aging westbound bridge and provide system continuity between roadway improvements in both of the affected counties. The facility would support projected traffic demands and economic development trends in the area and improve safety along the US 40/61 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development on 19.3 acres would result in the encroachment on 7.2 acres of floodplain land, disturbance of two previously recorded archaeological sites, displacement of 1.5 acres of primarily wooded land within the Weldon Spring Conservation Area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040417, 181 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Preserves KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 248 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874831; 11136-1_0248 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 248 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 247 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874830; 11136-1_0247 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 247 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 246 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874829; 11136-1_0246 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 246 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 245 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874828; 11136-1_0245 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 245 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 244 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874827; 11136-1_0244 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 244 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 241 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874824; 11136-1_0241 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 241 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 240 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874823; 11136-1_0240 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 240 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 237 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874820; 11136-1_0237 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 237 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 177 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874819; 11136-1_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 177 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 176 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874818; 11136-1_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 176 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 167 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874816; 11136-1_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 167 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 236 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874815; 11136-1_0236 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 236 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 166 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874814; 11136-1_0166 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 166 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 235 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874813; 11136-1_0235 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 235 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 165 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874812; 11136-1_0165 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 165 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 234 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874811; 11136-1_0234 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 234 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 164 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874810; 11136-1_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 164 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 232 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874807; 11136-1_0232 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 232 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 162 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874806; 11136-1_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 162 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 231 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874805; 11136-1_0231 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 231 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 161 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874804; 11136-1_0161 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 161 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 230 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874803; 11136-1_0230 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 230 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 160 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874802; 11136-1_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 160 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 229 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874801; 11136-1_0229 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 229 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 159 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874800; 11136-1_0159 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 159 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 228 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874799; 11136-1_0228 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 228 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 158 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874798; 11136-1_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 158 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 157 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874795; 11136-1_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 157 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 119 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874794; 11136-1_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 119 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 156 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874793; 11136-1_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 156 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 225 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874792; 11136-1_0225 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 225 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 118 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874791; 11136-1_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 118 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 155 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874789; 11136-1_0155 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 155 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 117 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874788; 11136-1_0117 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 117 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 153 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874786; 11136-1_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 153 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 114 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874785; 11136-1_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 114 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 152 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874783; 11136-1_0152 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 152 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 113 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874781; 11136-1_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 113 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 75 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874779; 11136-1_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 75 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 150 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874778; 11136-1_0150 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 150 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 111 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874777; 11136-1_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 111 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 125 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874776; 11136-1_0125 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 125 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874775; 11136-1_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 74 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 149 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874774; 11136-1_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 149 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 73 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874773; 11136-1_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 73 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 110 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874772; 11136-1_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 110 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 124 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874771; 11136-1_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 124 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 148 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874770; 11136-1_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 148 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874767; 11136-1_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 72 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 121 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874766; 11136-1_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 121 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 120 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874762; 11136-1_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 120 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 146 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874760; 11136-1_0146 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 146 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 71 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874758; 11136-1_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 71 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 145 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874754; 11136-1_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 145 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874752; 11136-1_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874748; 11136-1_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 62 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874746; 11136-1_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 61 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874742; 11136-1_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 61 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 68 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874741; 11136-1_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874737; 11136-1_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 60 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 116 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874736; 11136-1_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 116 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874735; 11136-1_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874734; 11136-1_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 59 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874733; 11136-1_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 198 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874732; 11136-1_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 198 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 115 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874731; 11136-1_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 115 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874729; 11136-1_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 58 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 195 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874727; 11136-1_0195 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 195 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 215 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874726; 11136-1_0215 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 215 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874725; 11136-1_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 57 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874723; 11136-1_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 126 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874722; 11136-1_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 126 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 210 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874721; 11136-1_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 210 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874720; 11136-1_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 56 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 109 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874719; 11136-1_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 109 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874718; 11136-1_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 63 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 203 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874717; 11136-1_0203 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 203 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 107 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874716; 11136-1_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 107 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874715; 11136-1_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874713; 11136-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 202 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874712; 11136-1_0202 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 202 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 106 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874711; 11136-1_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 106 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874708; 11136-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 201 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874707; 11136-1_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 201 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874705; 11136-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874704; 11136-1_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 103 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874702; 11136-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874698; 11136-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874694; 11136-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874691; 11136-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 128 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874687; 11136-1_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 128 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874684; 11136-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 39 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874682; 11136-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 39 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874681; 11136-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 196 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874680; 11136-1_0196 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 196 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874679; 11136-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874678; 11136-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 38 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 123 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874676; 11136-1_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 123 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874675; 11136-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 105 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874674; 11136-1_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 105 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874672; 11136-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 122 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874670; 11136-1_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 122 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874667; 11136-1_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 104 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874664; 11136-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 31 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874653; 11136-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 30 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874645; 11136-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 28 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 219 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874587; 11136-1_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 219 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 218 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874583; 11136-1_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 218 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 211 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874576; 11136-1_0211 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 211 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 207 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874571; 11136-1_0207 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 207 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 255 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874568; 11136-1_0255 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 255 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 254 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874559; 11136-1_0254 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 254 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 139 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874556; 11136-1_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 139 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 253 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874548; 11136-1_0253 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 253 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 250 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874546; 11136-1_0250 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 250 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 133 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874545; 11136-1_0133 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 133 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 91 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874543; 11136-1_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 91 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 252 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874538; 11136-1_0252 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 252 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 194 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874537; 11136-1_0194 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 194 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 50 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874535; 11136-1_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 50 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 190 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874534; 11136-1_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 190 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 87 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874530; 11136-1_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 87 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 193 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874527; 11136-1_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 193 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874525; 11136-1_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 186 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874521; 11136-1_0186 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 186 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 172 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874520; 11136-1_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 172 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 86 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874519; 11136-1_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 86 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 192 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874513; 11136-1_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 192 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874512; 11136-1_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 48 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 185 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874510; 11136-1_0185 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 185 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874508; 11136-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 171 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874506; 11136-1_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 171 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 191 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874500; 11136-1_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 191 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874498; 11136-1_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 95 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 188 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874497; 11136-1_0188 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 188 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 98 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874490; 11136-1_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 98 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 174 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874486; 11136-1_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 174 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 187 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874477; 11136-1_0187 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 187 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 93 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874474; 11136-1_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 93 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 173 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874467; 11136-1_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 173 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 101 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874465; 11136-1_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 101 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874455; 11136-1_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 80 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 92 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874450; 11136-1_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 92 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874448; 11136-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 100 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874443; 11136-1_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 100 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874438; 11136-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874435; 11136-1_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 84 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874433; 11136-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 99 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874426; 11136-1_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 99 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874417; 11136-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 221 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874413; 11136-1_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 221 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 179 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874399; 11136-1_0179 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 179 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 220 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874397; 11136-1_0220 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 220 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 81 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874394; 11136-1_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 81 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874391; 11136-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 178 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874386; 11136-1_0178 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 178 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 189 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874385; 11136-1_0189 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 189 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 140 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874384; 11136-1_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 140 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874381; 11136-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 97 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874372; 11136-1_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 97 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874371; 11136-1_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 89 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 127 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874369; 11136-1_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 127 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874360; 11136-1_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 88 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874359; 11136-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 29 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 249 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874353; 11136-1_0249 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 249 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 170 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874331; 11136-1_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 170 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 169 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874313; 11136-1_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 169 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 181 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874293; 11136-1_0181 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 181 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874282; 11136-1_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 78 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 180 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874273; 11136-1_0180 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 180 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874258; 11136-1_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 90 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874257; 11136-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 216 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874184; 11136-1_0216 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 216 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 214 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874171; 11136-1_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 214 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 213 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874159; 11136-1_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 213 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 138 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874142; 11136-1_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 138 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 222 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874135; 11136-1_0222 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 222 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 137 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874122; 11136-1_0137 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 137 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 135 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874102; 11136-1_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 135 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 224 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874086; 11136-1_0224 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 224 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 142 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874084; 11136-1_0142 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 142 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 223 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874071; 11136-1_0223 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 223 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 141 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874069; 11136-1_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 141 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874064; 11136-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 130 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874053; 11136-1_0130 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 130 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874037; 11136-1_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 144 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874034; 11136-1_0144 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 144 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 143 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874024; 11136-1_0143 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 143 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874016; 11136-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 34 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 134 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874013; 11136-1_0134 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 134 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 33 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874006; 11136-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 33 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874002; 11136-1_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 54 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873989; 11136-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873988; 11136-1_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 42 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873957; 11136-1_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 42 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873929; 11136-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 209 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873795; 11136-1_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 209 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 208 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873755; 11136-1_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 208 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 131 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873706; 11136-1_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 131 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 136 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873690; 11136-1_0136 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 136 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 45 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873659; 11136-1_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 45 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873617; 11136-1_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 44 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873562; 11136-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 204 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873390; 11136-1_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 204 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 129 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873343; 11136-1_0129 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 129 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOSSAN: LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO PROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AN - 36440336; 11121 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor, which traversed Orange County, connecting Los Angeles and San Diego, California, is proposed. Travel along the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor is largely served by Interstate 5 (I-5) and the LOSSAN rail corridor. The rail corridor is used by Amtrak intercity passenger rail service, Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) foreign service. The rail corridor loosely parallels I-5 from Los Angeles Union Station through Orange County to San Diego's Santa Fe Depot. Southern California's existing transportation network, including this rail corridor, is currently operating at or near its design capacity, resulting in severe congestion. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve no corridor improvements beyond those projects already programmed. The action alternative, known as the Rail Improvements Alternative, would add grade separations, rail alignment alternatives, and other improvements, resulting in a completely double-tracked rail corridor through Orange County to San Diego, with four tracks between Los Angeles Union Station and Fullerton. Trains would be able to achieve their maximum operational speeds of up to 110 to 125 miles per hour, reducing trip times. Elimination of at-grade crossings in many locations and installation of state-of-the-art safety and signaling systems would also be incorporated throughout the corridor. Two options are available, specifically a partially grade-separated system and a fully grade-separated system. Daily rail service volume along the corridor in 2020 would consist of 16 intercity trains, between nine and 29 commuter trains (depending on the segment of the corridor considered), and four to six freight trains. Costs of the action alternative are estimated to range from $3.8 billion to $5.4 billion in 2003 dollars. Cost estimates include rights-of-way acquisition, and provision of additional track, tunneling, trenching, stations, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extended rail system would help meet the Southern California region's current transportation demands, as well as help to address the expected increase in intercity travel demand resulting from the anticipated population growth over the next 20 years. In addition to accommodating the expected demand volume, the improvements would reduce trip times, promote more reliable service, and increase the reliability and flexibility of the system. Grade separation of the system would reduce train/vehicular conflicts and the associated safety hazards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel consumption from the number of locomotives traveling in the LOSSAN corridor would not change, since train traffic along the corridor would nearly double by 2020 with or without the proposed improvements. Under either alternative, annual locomotive energy consumption for operations would be the equivalent of approximately 361,922 barrels of oil. Construction of the rail improvements would consume 14,066 British thermal units. Rights-of-way development could result in the displacement of wetlands and other wildlife habitat for special status species. Temporary impacts during construction could be potentially significant, particularly in sensitive areas lagoon habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). JF - EPA number: 040396, 755 pages and maps, August 17, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Consumption KW - Lagoons KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOSSAN%3A+LOS+ANGELES+TO+SAN+DIEGO+PROPOSED+RAIL+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDIES+IN+THE+STATE+OF+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOSSAN%3A+LOS+ANGELES+TO+SAN+DIEGO+PROPOSED+RAIL+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDIES+IN+THE+STATE+OF+CALIFORNIA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOSSAN: LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO PROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LOSSAN: LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO PROPOSED RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371221; 11121-040396_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to the LOSSAN rail corridor, which traversed Orange County, connecting Los Angeles and San Diego, California, is proposed. Travel along the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor is largely served by Interstate 5 (I-5) and the LOSSAN rail corridor. The rail corridor is used by Amtrak intercity passenger rail service, Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) foreign service. The rail corridor loosely parallels I-5 from Los Angeles Union Station through Orange County to San Diego's Santa Fe Depot. Southern California's existing transportation network, including this rail corridor, is currently operating at or near its design capacity, resulting in severe congestion. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve no corridor improvements beyond those projects already programmed. The action alternative, known as the Rail Improvements Alternative, would add grade separations, rail alignment alternatives, and other improvements, resulting in a completely double-tracked rail corridor through Orange County to San Diego, with four tracks between Los Angeles Union Station and Fullerton. Trains would be able to achieve their maximum operational speeds of up to 110 to 125 miles per hour, reducing trip times. Elimination of at-grade crossings in many locations and installation of state-of-the-art safety and signaling systems would also be incorporated throughout the corridor. Two options are available, specifically a partially grade-separated system and a fully grade-separated system. Daily rail service volume along the corridor in 2020 would consist of 16 intercity trains, between nine and 29 commuter trains (depending on the segment of the corridor considered), and four to six freight trains. Costs of the action alternative are estimated to range from $3.8 billion to $5.4 billion in 2003 dollars. Cost estimates include rights-of-way acquisition, and provision of additional track, tunneling, trenching, stations, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extended rail system would help meet the Southern California region's current transportation demands, as well as help to address the expected increase in intercity travel demand resulting from the anticipated population growth over the next 20 years. In addition to accommodating the expected demand volume, the improvements would reduce trip times, promote more reliable service, and increase the reliability and flexibility of the system. Grade separation of the system would reduce train/vehicular conflicts and the associated safety hazards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fuel consumption from the number of locomotives traveling in the LOSSAN corridor would not change, since train traffic along the corridor would nearly double by 2020 with or without the proposed improvements. Under either alternative, annual locomotive energy consumption for operations would be the equivalent of approximately 361,922 barrels of oil. Construction of the rail improvements would consume 14,066 British thermal units. Rights-of-way development could result in the displacement of wetlands and other wildlife habitat for special status species. Temporary impacts during construction could be potentially significant, particularly in sensitive areas lagoon habitats. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107). JF - EPA number: 040396, 755 pages and maps, August 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Consumption KW - Lagoons KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOSSAN%3A+LOS+ANGELES+TO+SAN+DIEGO+PROPOSED+RAIL+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDIES+IN+THE+STATE+OF+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOSSAN%3A+LOS+ANGELES+TO+SAN+DIEGO+PROPOSED+RAIL+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDIES+IN+THE+STATE+OF+CALIFORNIA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). AN - 36374135; 11114-040389_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - St. Croix River KW - Wisconsin KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). AN - 36368001; 11113-040388_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana are proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Chiniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company. The project would involve the construction of a new marine terminal basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year; installation of two 30-inch-diameter stainless steel insulated LNG pipelines to transfer the LNG from the berth facilities to the LNG storage tanks; three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 cubic meters (1.0 million barrels) and each with secondary containment dikes capable of containing 110 percent of the gross tank volume; nine intake pumps, each capable of discharging 4,300 gallons per minute (gpm), and 16 sendout pumps, each capable of discharging 1,686 gpm; 16 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers with a capacity of approximately 180 million cubic feet per day each, as well as other associated vaporization equipment; three boil-off gas compressors, instrumentation and safety systems, including hazard detection and fire response systems; packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets to generate power for the LNG terminal; ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including a metering facility; and approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, two metering stations, and associated ancillary pipeline facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would provide service to shippers desiring to contract for the receipt, storage, and vaporization of LNG and deliver natural gas through the associated sendout pipeline to interconnection points with existing pipeline systems in Louisiana, thereby providing an important source of energy for the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 540.3 acres of land for the terminal and pipeline, which includes 35.3 acres of land that would be converted to open water for the marine basin/berth and constriction dpcl areas. In addition, 36.2 acres of shallow water would be converted to deep water in Sabine Pass to allow access from the ship channel to the LNG ship berths and construction dock. Operation of the facilities would affect 341.3 acres of land, of which 236.6 acres would be converted permanently for operation of the LNG terminal facilities and 2.1 acres for the operation of the aboveground pipeline facilities. Most of the affected land would be open land consisting primarily of coastal prairie/grassland and wetlands, and a dredged material placement area at the LNG terminal site. Soils under-laying project structures are hydric, with a high compaction potential. The pipeline would traverse one intermittent stream and four perennial water bodies. A total of 156 acres of wetlands would be affected, including permanent displacement of 17.4 acres of emergent wetland, 30.3 acres of dredged material placement area, and 0.08 acre of emergent wetlands. An additional 0.17acre of forested wetlands would be converted to emergent wetland. Wetland mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project design. Operational air emissions would exceed state limits for nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 040388, 521 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0170 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Electric Power KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Sabine Pass KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 89, BROWNING TO HUDSON BAY DIVIDE, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16367888; 11115 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 25.5-mile segment of US 89 from its junction with US 2 to the Hudson Bay Divide south of Saint Mary in Glacier County, Montana is proposed. The US Browning to Hudson Bay Divide project initially considered improvement of a network of roadways that perform some of the transportation functions that might otherwise be performed by US 89 if it met current roadway standards. State and federal authorities concluded that the most pressing need for roadway improvements within this roadway network exists in the transportation corridor between the Saint Mary Babb area, including points north of Babb and west of Saint Mary, and the Browning area, including points south and east of Browning. US 89 and Duck Lake Road function as the primary transportation links between these two areas. Hence, the project has focused on potential improvements to US 89 between Hudson Bay Divide and Browning as well as improvements to Duck Lake Road between US 89 south of Babb and Browning. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and two widening alternatives, are considered in the draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for a 32-foot cross-section, while alternative C would provide for a cross-section of 36 feet. The EIS also analyses a Duck Lake Road Option, which would consist of improvements in three areas along Duck Lake Road as an alternate truck route for US 89; this option could be implemented under any alternative. Alternative C, with the Duck Lake Road Option, has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility that meets current design standards, enhancing safety and highway operations within the corridor. The highway would particularly enhance the cultural resources and economic opportunities of the Blackfeet Nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 146 acres of wildlife habitat and increase fragmentation of forested habitat in the area and require the relocation of one residence and the acquisition of two areas of unimproved lands encompassing 472 acres. Extensive earthwork would be required along the corridor. The project would displace 19.8 acres of wetlands. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of South Fork Cut Bank Creek would be relocated. Bald eagle, grizzly bear, and bull trout, all of which are federally protected species, could be affected somewhat. Two historic bridges and the Blackfeet Highway, also an historically significant resource, would be affected, and several archaeologically significant cloth-offering sites would be disturbed. Highway structures would diminish the visual quality of the rural area. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040390, 377 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - ]Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). AN - 16355080; 11113 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana are proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Chiniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company. The project would involve the construction of a new marine terminal basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year; installation of two 30-inch-diameter stainless steel insulated LNG pipelines to transfer the LNG from the berth facilities to the LNG storage tanks; three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 cubic meters (1.0 million barrels) and each with secondary containment dikes capable of containing 110 percent of the gross tank volume; nine intake pumps, each capable of discharging 4,300 gallons per minute (gpm), and 16 sendout pumps, each capable of discharging 1,686 gpm; 16 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers with a capacity of approximately 180 million cubic feet per day each, as well as other associated vaporization equipment; three boil-off gas compressors, instrumentation and safety systems, including hazard detection and fire response systems; packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets to generate power for the LNG terminal; ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including a metering facility; and approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, two metering stations, and associated ancillary pipeline facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would provide service to shippers desiring to contract for the receipt, storage, and vaporization of LNG and deliver natural gas through the associated sendout pipeline to interconnection points with existing pipeline systems in Louisiana, thereby providing an important source of energy for the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 540.3 acres of land for the terminal and pipeline, which includes 35.3 acres of land that would be converted to open water for the marine basin/berth and constriction dpcl areas. In addition, 36.2 acres of shallow water would be converted to deep water in Sabine Pass to allow access from the ship channel to the LNG ship berths and construction dock. Operation of the facilities would affect 341.3 acres of land, of which 236.6 acres would be converted permanently for operation of the LNG terminal facilities and 2.1 acres for the operation of the aboveground pipeline facilities. Most of the affected land would be open land consisting primarily of coastal prairie/grassland and wetlands, and a dredged material placement area at the LNG terminal site. Soils under-laying project structures are hydric, with a high compaction potential. The pipeline would traverse one intermittent stream and four perennial water bodies. A total of 156 acres of wetlands would be affected, including permanent displacement of 17.4 acres of emergent wetland, 30.3 acres of dredged material placement area, and 0.08 acre of emergent wetlands. An additional 0.17acre of forested wetlands would be converted to emergent wetland. Wetland mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project design. Operational air emissions would exceed state limits for nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 040388, 521 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0170 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Electric Power KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Sabine Pass KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SABINE+PASS+LNG+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28DOCKET+NOS+CP04-47-000%2C+CP04-38-000%2C+CP04-39-000%2C+AND+CP04-40-000%29.&rft.title=SABINE+PASS+LNG+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28DOCKET+NOS+CP04-47-000%2C+CP04-38-000%2C+CP04-39-000%2C+AND+CP04-40-000%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). AN - 16354053; 11114 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - St. Croix River KW - Wisconsin KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA FOREST HIGHWAY 224 (BAUTISTA CANYON ROAD PROJECT) BETWEEN FLORIDA AVENUE (SH 74) AND SH 371, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439912; 11108 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of an 8.2-mile segment of Bautista Canyon Road (California Forest Highway 224) between F2lorida Avenue (SH 74) and SH 371 in Riverside County, California is proposed. The poor condition of the existing roadway prevents it from functioning as an efficient link in the county transportation system. The currently unpaved section of the road contains many operational deficiencies and require considerable maintenance and impede safe access to and through a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), this draft EIS considers three alternative alignments with varying design speeds. The preferred alignment alternative (Alternative C) would provide a 7.6-mile, low-volume, two-lane rural collector with design speeds ranging from 25 to 35 miles per hour (mph). The study corridor was divided into three segments based on terrain. Under Alternative C, design speeds were incorporated accordingly to maximize travel efficiency while minimizing resource disturbance. Alternative C would provide for a 35-mph design speed where the terrain is relatively flat and a 25-mph design speed along the middle segment, where the terrain in mountainous. The project would include the construction of a bridge across Bautista Canyon and trailhead for the Alessandro Trail, including provision of a parking area. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $11.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access efficiency for all users, including fire and other emergency vehicles, increased safety, reduced fugitive dust emissions, and engineering upgrades to the regional circulation system in accordance with the Riverside County General Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative C would require 307,400 cubic yards of excavation. Rights-of-way development would displace 40 acres, including 32.1 acres of upland habitat and 0.92 acre of wetlands. The historic properties that make up the archaeological district in the area would be adversely affected; nine sites could be damaged or destroyed. The new roadway would substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the corridor and its surroundings. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail would be closed during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040382, Draft EIS--334 pages, Technical Appendices--412 pages and maps, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FPCA-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Bernardino National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOCTAW POINT TERMINAL PROJECT, MOBILE, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 36435135; 11107 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a world-class deep-water integrated intermodal container-handling terminal facility in the city of Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama are proposed. IN recent years, the Alabama State Port Authority (ASPA) has witnessed a statewide move away from heavy industry to light manufacturing and value-added activities. Traditionally, the Port of Mobile has been an import and export location for high volume bulk products, with a lesser emphasis on classes of cargo needed by modern light industry. The proposed ASPA terminal facilities would address the need for the effective and efficient movement of containers to Alabama industry. The 370-acre project site lies adjacent to the Mobile River and Garrows Bend in the city of Mobile. The project would include construction of a 2,000-foot wharf parallel to the Mobile Ship Channel; development of a container yard and support facilities adjacent to the wharf to provide for container processing and storage, support and operations requirements, control gate access, and roadway access; provision of an intermodal rail yard consisting of two operational terminals for water-truck and truck-rail cargo transfers; installation of storm water management facilities, including trench drains, inlets with underground pipe systems, and channelization improvements; provision of public access and use amenities to enhance the public's experience of the waterfront at the western shore of Mobile Bay and complement the proposed Crepe Myrtle Trail, an ongoing civic movement to provide linear parks and recreational facilities that celebrate the history of the region; provision of value-added facilities, including distribution and warehouse space in a vacant area west of the rail yard; and navigational improvements, including a 2,000-foot-long berthing area between the ship channel and the wharf covering 15 acres of previously dredged river. Dredged material would be placed in the Gaillard Island Dredged Material Disposal Area. In addition to the ASPA proposal, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facilities would serve existing and emerging industries, create new economic opportunities in the Mobile area, and support similar opportunities on a statewide level. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace 277 acres of upland habitat, including habitat for federally protected birds, reptiles, and mammals. Approximately 24,3 acres of wetlands and 47.4 acres of open water would be filled. Construction and operation of the facility would significant increase ambient emissions of nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides, though federal standards would not be exceeded. Truck and rail traffic in the vicinity of the terminal would increase significantly. Project facilities would change the visual characteristics of the project site from those of a relatively underdeveloped are to those of a well-lit industrial facility. Rerouting of the Tennessee Street Drain would increase the sediment load in the Southern Drain, likely increasing delta formation in the Southern Drain. Rerouting of the drain would also encroach on an existing floodway. Portions of the site would lie within special flood hazard zones, though filling in certain areas would raise the affected portions of the site above the level of the 100-year flood. The site would lie in an area affected by severe storms, including hurricanes. Non-point water pollution would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0230D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040381, Final EIS--279 pages, Appendices-910 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Mobile 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/36435135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE LOCATION ADOPTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 905 BETWEEN THE OTAY MESA PORT OF ENTRY AND INTERSTATE 805 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROUTE LOCATION ADOPTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 905 BETWEEN THE OTAY MESA PORT OF ENTRY AND INTERSTATE 805 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36374242; 11109-040384_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a six-lane, mixed-flow, controlled access freeway or tollway, to be designated State Route (SR) 905 to connect Otay Mesa Point of Entry and Interstate 805 (I-805) in San Diego County, California is proposed. The corridor constitutes an important transportation route for goods and services between the United States and Mexico. Sufficient rights-of-way for a wider than usual median would be purchased to allow for the addition of two high-occupancy-vehicle lanes in the future, though not during the 20-year design horizon of the project. Seven alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Three tollway and three freeway alignment alternatives are addressed. The 6.2-mile facility would include five local interchanges, one each at Caliente Avenue, Heritage Road, Britannia Boulevard, and La Media Road. In addition, a freeway-to-freeway interchange would be provided at Route 125. The preferred alternation (Freeway Central Alignment) would begin at the Route 905/I-805 interchange and proceed eastward to the Point of Entry. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $309 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would improve access to and from the Point of Entry and to relieve traffic congestion along with existing Otay Mesa Road corridor. The new highway would complete SR 905, improve mobility and safety, and accommodate anticipated increases in this border trade corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of one residence and three businesses, four acres of prime farmland, 469 acres of farmland of local or statewide importance, and 88.3 acres of farmland in active use, as well as small areas of various types of wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat and habitat for federally protected species. The project would have a minor impact on community cohesion. Noise levels of exceed federal standards at numerous residential receptor locations. Hazardous waste sites would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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 01-0453, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040384, 465 pages and maps, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-01-03-F KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys 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/36374242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+LOCATION+ADOPTION+AND+CONSTRUCTION+OF+STATE+ROUTE+905+BETWEEN+THE+OTAY+MESA+PORT+OF+ENTRY+AND+INTERSTATE+805+IN+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+LOCATION+ADOPTION+AND+CONSTRUCTION+OF+STATE+ROUTE+905+BETWEEN+THE+OTAY+MESA+PORT+OF+ENTRY+AND+INTERSTATE+805+IN+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Diego, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA FOREST HIGHWAY 224 (BAUTISTA CANYON ROAD PROJECT) BETWEEN FLORIDA AVENUE (SH 74) AND SH 371, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CALIFORNIA FOREST HIGHWAY 224 (BAUTISTA CANYON ROAD PROJECT) BETWEEN FLORIDA AVENUE (SH 74) AND SH 371, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373875; 11108-040382_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of an 8.2-mile segment of Bautista Canyon Road (California Forest Highway 224) between F2lorida Avenue (SH 74) and SH 371 in Riverside County, California is proposed. The poor condition of the existing roadway prevents it from functioning as an efficient link in the county transportation system. The currently unpaved section of the road contains many operational deficiencies and require considerable maintenance and impede safe access to and through a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), this draft EIS considers three alternative alignments with varying design speeds. The preferred alignment alternative (Alternative C) would provide a 7.6-mile, low-volume, two-lane rural collector with design speeds ranging from 25 to 35 miles per hour (mph). The study corridor was divided into three segments based on terrain. Under Alternative C, design speeds were incorporated accordingly to maximize travel efficiency while minimizing resource disturbance. Alternative C would provide for a 35-mph design speed where the terrain is relatively flat and a 25-mph design speed along the middle segment, where the terrain in mountainous. The project would include the construction of a bridge across Bautista Canyon and trailhead for the Alessandro Trail, including provision of a parking area. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $11.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access efficiency for all users, including fire and other emergency vehicles, increased safety, reduced fugitive dust emissions, and engineering upgrades to the regional circulation system in accordance with the Riverside County General Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative C would require 307,400 cubic yards of excavation. Rights-of-way development would displace 40 acres, including 32.1 acres of upland habitat and 0.92 acre of wetlands. The historic properties that make up the archaeological district in the area would be adversely affected; nine sites could be damaged or destroyed. The new roadway would substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the corridor and its surroundings. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail would be closed during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040382, Draft EIS--334 pages, Technical Appendices--412 pages and maps, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FPCA-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Bernardino National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOCTAW POINT TERMINAL PROJECT, MOBILE, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CHOCTAW POINT TERMINAL PROJECT, MOBILE, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 36367962; 11107-040381_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a world-class deep-water integrated intermodal container-handling terminal facility in the city of Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama are proposed. IN recent years, the Alabama State Port Authority (ASPA) has witnessed a statewide move away from heavy industry to light manufacturing and value-added activities. Traditionally, the Port of Mobile has been an import and export location for high volume bulk products, with a lesser emphasis on classes of cargo needed by modern light industry. The proposed ASPA terminal facilities would address the need for the effective and efficient movement of containers to Alabama industry. The 370-acre project site lies adjacent to the Mobile River and Garrows Bend in the city of Mobile. The project would include construction of a 2,000-foot wharf parallel to the Mobile Ship Channel; development of a container yard and support facilities adjacent to the wharf to provide for container processing and storage, support and operations requirements, control gate access, and roadway access; provision of an intermodal rail yard consisting of two operational terminals for water-truck and truck-rail cargo transfers; installation of storm water management facilities, including trench drains, inlets with underground pipe systems, and channelization improvements; provision of public access and use amenities to enhance the public's experience of the waterfront at the western shore of Mobile Bay and complement the proposed Crepe Myrtle Trail, an ongoing civic movement to provide linear parks and recreational facilities that celebrate the history of the region; provision of value-added facilities, including distribution and warehouse space in a vacant area west of the rail yard; and navigational improvements, including a 2,000-foot-long berthing area between the ship channel and the wharf covering 15 acres of previously dredged river. Dredged material would be placed in the Gaillard Island Dredged Material Disposal Area. In addition to the ASPA proposal, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facilities would serve existing and emerging industries, create new economic opportunities in the Mobile area, and support similar opportunities on a statewide level. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace 277 acres of upland habitat, including habitat for federally protected birds, reptiles, and mammals. Approximately 24,3 acres of wetlands and 47.4 acres of open water would be filled. Construction and operation of the facility would significant increase ambient emissions of nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides, though federal standards would not be exceeded. Truck and rail traffic in the vicinity of the terminal would increase significantly. Project facilities would change the visual characteristics of the project site from those of a relatively underdeveloped are to those of a well-lit industrial facility. Rerouting of the Tennessee Street Drain would increase the sediment load in the Southern Drain, likely increasing delta formation in the Southern Drain. Rerouting of the drain would also encroach on an existing floodway. Portions of the site would lie within special flood hazard zones, though filling in certain areas would raise the affected portions of the site above the level of the 100-year flood. The site would lie in an area affected by severe storms, including hurricanes. Non-point water pollution would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0230D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040381, Final EIS--279 pages, Appendices-910 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Mobile 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/36367962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOCTAW+POINT+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+MOBILE%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=CHOCTAW+POINT+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+MOBILE%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA FOREST HIGHWAY 224 (BAUTISTA CANYON ROAD PROJECT) BETWEEN FLORIDA AVENUE (SH 74) AND SH 371, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CALIFORNIA FOREST HIGHWAY 224 (BAUTISTA CANYON ROAD PROJECT) BETWEEN FLORIDA AVENUE (SH 74) AND SH 371, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36361325; 11108-040382_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of an 8.2-mile segment of Bautista Canyon Road (California Forest Highway 224) between F2lorida Avenue (SH 74) and SH 371 in Riverside County, California is proposed. The poor condition of the existing roadway prevents it from functioning as an efficient link in the county transportation system. The currently unpaved section of the road contains many operational deficiencies and require considerable maintenance and impede safe access to and through a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest. In addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), this draft EIS considers three alternative alignments with varying design speeds. The preferred alignment alternative (Alternative C) would provide a 7.6-mile, low-volume, two-lane rural collector with design speeds ranging from 25 to 35 miles per hour (mph). The study corridor was divided into three segments based on terrain. Under Alternative C, design speeds were incorporated accordingly to maximize travel efficiency while minimizing resource disturbance. Alternative C would provide for a 35-mph design speed where the terrain is relatively flat and a 25-mph design speed along the middle segment, where the terrain in mountainous. The project would include the construction of a bridge across Bautista Canyon and trailhead for the Alessandro Trail, including provision of a parking area. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $11.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access efficiency for all users, including fire and other emergency vehicles, increased safety, reduced fugitive dust emissions, and engineering upgrades to the regional circulation system in accordance with the Riverside County General Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative C would require 307,400 cubic yards of excavation. Rights-of-way development would displace 40 acres, including 32.1 acres of upland habitat and 0.92 acre of wetlands. The historic properties that make up the archaeological district in the area would be adversely affected; nine sites could be damaged or destroyed. The new roadway would substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the corridor and its surroundings. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail would be closed during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040382, Draft EIS--334 pages, Technical Appendices--412 pages and maps, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FPCA-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Bernardino National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+FOREST+HIGHWAY+224+%28BAUTISTA+CANYON+ROAD+PROJECT%29+BETWEEN+FLORIDA+AVENUE+%28SH+74%29+AND+SH+371%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOCTAW POINT TERMINAL PROJECT, MOBILE, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CHOCTAW POINT TERMINAL PROJECT, MOBILE, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 36360439; 11107-040381_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a world-class deep-water integrated intermodal container-handling terminal facility in the city of Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama are proposed. IN recent years, the Alabama State Port Authority (ASPA) has witnessed a statewide move away from heavy industry to light manufacturing and value-added activities. Traditionally, the Port of Mobile has been an import and export location for high volume bulk products, with a lesser emphasis on classes of cargo needed by modern light industry. The proposed ASPA terminal facilities would address the need for the effective and efficient movement of containers to Alabama industry. The 370-acre project site lies adjacent to the Mobile River and Garrows Bend in the city of Mobile. The project would include construction of a 2,000-foot wharf parallel to the Mobile Ship Channel; development of a container yard and support facilities adjacent to the wharf to provide for container processing and storage, support and operations requirements, control gate access, and roadway access; provision of an intermodal rail yard consisting of two operational terminals for water-truck and truck-rail cargo transfers; installation of storm water management facilities, including trench drains, inlets with underground pipe systems, and channelization improvements; provision of public access and use amenities to enhance the public's experience of the waterfront at the western shore of Mobile Bay and complement the proposed Crepe Myrtle Trail, an ongoing civic movement to provide linear parks and recreational facilities that celebrate the history of the region; provision of value-added facilities, including distribution and warehouse space in a vacant area west of the rail yard; and navigational improvements, including a 2,000-foot-long berthing area between the ship channel and the wharf covering 15 acres of previously dredged river. Dredged material would be placed in the Gaillard Island Dredged Material Disposal Area. In addition to the ASPA proposal, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facilities would serve existing and emerging industries, create new economic opportunities in the Mobile area, and support similar opportunities on a statewide level. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace 277 acres of upland habitat, including habitat for federally protected birds, reptiles, and mammals. Approximately 24,3 acres of wetlands and 47.4 acres of open water would be filled. Construction and operation of the facility would significant increase ambient emissions of nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxides, though federal standards would not be exceeded. Truck and rail traffic in the vicinity of the terminal would increase significantly. Project facilities would change the visual characteristics of the project site from those of a relatively underdeveloped are to those of a well-lit industrial facility. Rerouting of the Tennessee Street Drain would increase the sediment load in the Southern Drain, likely increasing delta formation in the Southern Drain. Rerouting of the drain would also encroach on an existing floodway. Portions of the site would lie within special flood hazard zones, though filling in certain areas would raise the affected portions of the site above the level of the 100-year flood. The site would lie in an area affected by severe storms, including hurricanes. Non-point water pollution would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0230D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040381, Final EIS--279 pages, Appendices-910 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Air Quality KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Mobile 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/36360439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOCTAW+POINT+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+MOBILE%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=CHOCTAW+POINT+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+MOBILE%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELMA TO MONTGOMERY NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SELMA TO MONTGOMERY NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALABAMA. AN - 36370907; 11098-040372_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail in Alabama is proposed. The 54-mile trial begins at the Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma and follows the route of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March, which traveled through Lowndes County along US Highway 80, currently nominated to be an All American Road; sites in Dallas and Montgomery counties would also be involved in the historic preservation/interpretation program. The march culminated at the Alabama state capitol. Historians view the march as one of the last great campaigns, as well as the emotional peak, of the Modern Civil Rights Movement that began in the 1950s. The events associated with the march brought the issue of voting rights to the forefront of the national political agenda and raised the nation's consciousness about African-Americans' struggle for equal rights. Five months after the march, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established the legal right to vote for all Americans and forever altered the regional and political landscape. The proposed plan would set management objectives fro the trail by providing a blueprint for administration, resource protection, interpretation, and visitor experience, use of the trail, and site development and marking. The plan further defines the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, organizations, and local interests that will serve as partners with the National Park Service to carry out management objectives. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide stories of the march as defined by the events that occurred between March 7 and March 25, 1965, in Dallas, Lowndes, and Montgomery counties, as well as information on the broader efforts of 1965 and earlier and subsequently to gain voting rights by African-Americans. US 80 would be redesigned to accommodate additional lanes and new safety features, while preserving the roadway's original lanes for local access only. An inventory of the significant, historically intact landscapes along the corridor would be developed and funding would be sought for acquisition and preservation of these resources. Trail partners would further enhance preservation of the route's historic setting by determining priorities for the protection of trail view-sheds with scenic and historic integrity. Three interpretive centers would be established, two of which would be situated in existing buildings. Personnel costs for the interpretive centers are estimated at $1.8 million per year. Approximately $200,000 is expected to be allocated to meet technical assistance, and the National Park Service would provide an additional $125,000 annually to cover operational costs of the St. Jude site in Montgomery County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would commemorate, interpret, and preserve resources associated with the march, improving visitor understanding of the significance of the march and ensuring its continued significance in the American consciousness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Addition of parallel lanes to US 80 in Lowndes County and construction of an interpretive center at the Tent City site in Lowndes County would alter the view-shed from the original route. Increased vehicular traffic along an improved US 80 could also conflict with pedestrian and bicycle use along the trail. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended (P.L. 90-325) and Public Law 101-321. JF - EPA number: 040372, 167 pages, August, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 04-39 KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alabama KW - Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail KW - National Trail System Act of 1968, as amended, Compliance KW - Public Law 101-321, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=SELMA+TO+MONTGOMERY+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL+COMPREHENSIVE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379279; 10908-040360_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0060D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040360, 641 pages, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36373327; 10907-040359_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass around the city of Burlington, in the southwestern portion of Racine County and the eastern portion of Walworth County, Wisconsin, is proposed. Major highways serving the project area are State Trunk Highway (STH) 36, STH 83, STH 11, and STH 142, each providing access into the city of Burlington. Each of these is a major link in the transportation system serving southeastern Wisconsin, an area that contains 37 percent of the state's population. The convergence of these highways in and around Burlington has resulted in high traffic volumes and crash rates above statewide averages. Transportation needs identified by the community include reducing truck traffic, addressing safety concerns and substandard roadway design, improving access to area businesses and planned development, and addressing capacity problems. The project would be 8 to 11 miles long, bypassing Burlington to the east, south, and west. Local studies conducted in 1988 and 1990 concluded that a northern bypass would have adverse environmental impacts and would not carry a high volume of traffic. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management, transportation control measures, congestion management measures, and four bypass alternatives. The preferred action, a bypass alternative, would extend 11 miles from STH 36/83 north and east of the city to its western terminus at STH 11. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $102 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Burlington, improve route safety, reduce truck traffic in town, improve highway system linkage, and enhance regional economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 535 acres of new rights-of-way, 59 acres of wetlands, 33.1 acres of woodland, 374.5 acres of farmland, 81.7 acres within environmental corridors, 18 acres of natural areas, 18 residences, and five businesses. Property would be severed at 19 farms. Habitat for federal protected species would be affected. One archaeological site would be disturbed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at a number of sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter nine hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0180D, Volume 20, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040359, 427 pages and maps, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-96-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements 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/36373327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36369130; 10908-040360_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0060D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040360, 641 pages, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 16361267; 10907 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass around the city of Burlington, in the southwestern portion of Racine County and the eastern portion of Walworth County, Wisconsin, is proposed. Major highways serving the project area are State Trunk Highway (STH) 36, STH 83, STH 11, and STH 142, each providing access into the city of Burlington. Each of these is a major link in the transportation system serving southeastern Wisconsin, an area that contains 37 percent of the state's population. The convergence of these highways in and around Burlington has resulted in high traffic volumes and crash rates above statewide averages. Transportation needs identified by the community include reducing truck traffic, addressing safety concerns and substandard roadway design, improving access to area businesses and planned development, and addressing capacity problems. The project would be 8 to 11 miles long, bypassing Burlington to the east, south, and west. Local studies conducted in 1988 and 1990 concluded that a northern bypass would have adverse environmental impacts and would not carry a high volume of traffic. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management, transportation control measures, congestion management measures, and four bypass alternatives. The preferred action, a bypass alternative, would extend 11 miles from STH 36/83 north and east of the city to its western terminus at STH 11. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $102 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Burlington, improve route safety, reduce truck traffic in town, improve highway system linkage, and enhance regional economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 535 acres of new rights-of-way, 59 acres of wetlands, 33.1 acres of woodland, 374.5 acres of farmland, 81.7 acres within environmental corridors, 18 acres of natural areas, 18 residences, and five businesses. Property would be severed at 19 farms. Habitat for federal protected species would be affected. One archaeological site would be disturbed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at a number of sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter nine hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 96-0180D, Volume 20, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040359, 427 pages and maps, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-96-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements 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/16361267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 36435975; 10893 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 8.54-mile section of US 33 to a four-lane controlled access expressway between Haydenville in Hocking County and New Floodwood in Athens County, Ohio is proposed. US extends from the southwest corner of Michigan to Richmond, Virginia, carrying a substantial volume of interstate traffic between cities such as South Bend and Fort Wayne, Indiana and Columbus, Ohio and Charleston, West Virginia. Hilly terrain limits the number of parallel corridors, concentrating regional travel within the US 33 corridor. Within the project study corridor US 33 suffers from fewer lanes than necessary and a portion that passes through Nelsonville, which constitutes a significant traffic bottleneck. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A/C) would provide for a four-lane roadway bypassing Nelsonville. Seven local roads would be bridged. Costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mine mitigation are estimated at $111.0 million, $5.4 million, and 37.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would increase roadway capacity significantly and enhance traffic flow by bypassing Nelsonville. Through traffic would be removed from Nelsonville, enhancing community cohesion and safety. Regional traffic movements would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of rights-of-way would displace 48 residences, three businesses, 10.5 acres of farmland, 57 acres of 100-year floodplain, 707 acres of forested land, nearly 13 acres of wetlands, and land and vegetation within the Wayne National Forest, and the alignment would impact 37,381 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The preferred alternative would also cause more substantial forest habitat fragmentation. One off-road vehicle trail within the national forest would be affected. Indiana bat, a federally protected species, would be significantly impacted, and another protected species cerulean warbler would suffer moderate impacts; all other impacts to protected species would be low or nonexistent. Access to four oil and gas wells would be eliminated. Traffic-generated noise levels in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste materials site during project implementation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040343, 476 pages and maps, July 20, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - Wayne National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 36370526; 10893-040343_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 8.54-mile section of US 33 to a four-lane controlled access expressway between Haydenville in Hocking County and New Floodwood in Athens County, Ohio is proposed. US extends from the southwest corner of Michigan to Richmond, Virginia, carrying a substantial volume of interstate traffic between cities such as South Bend and Fort Wayne, Indiana and Columbus, Ohio and Charleston, West Virginia. Hilly terrain limits the number of parallel corridors, concentrating regional travel within the US 33 corridor. Within the project study corridor US 33 suffers from fewer lanes than necessary and a portion that passes through Nelsonville, which constitutes a significant traffic bottleneck. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A/C) would provide for a four-lane roadway bypassing Nelsonville. Seven local roads would be bridged. Costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mine mitigation are estimated at $111.0 million, $5.4 million, and 37.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would increase roadway capacity significantly and enhance traffic flow by bypassing Nelsonville. Through traffic would be removed from Nelsonville, enhancing community cohesion and safety. Regional traffic movements would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of rights-of-way would displace 48 residences, three businesses, 10.5 acres of farmland, 57 acres of 100-year floodplain, 707 acres of forested land, nearly 13 acres of wetlands, and land and vegetation within the Wayne National Forest, and the alignment would impact 37,381 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The preferred alternative would also cause more substantial forest habitat fragmentation. One off-road vehicle trail within the national forest would be affected. Indiana bat, a federally protected species, would be significantly impacted, and another protected species cerulean warbler would suffer moderate impacts; all other impacts to protected species would be low or nonexistent. Access to four oil and gas wells would be eliminated. Traffic-generated noise levels in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste materials site during project implementation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040343, 476 pages and maps, July 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - Wayne National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36435026; 10881 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 10-mile segment of Maryland Route 210 (MD 210), also known as Indian Head Highway, in Prince Georges County, Maryland is proposed. The study corridor extends from Interstate 95 /Interstate 495 (I-95/I-495), also known as the Capital Beltway, to MD 228. The six-lane, divided arterial connects the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area at its northern terminus with the town of Indian Head in Charles County, approximately 20 miles south of the Prince Georges County/Washington line. The highway serves as a major route connecting I-95/I-495, the District of Columbia, and Virginia with southern Prince Georges County and Charles County. Eleven signalized intersections control intersections along the corridor. Peak hour delays and congestion have become particularly extreme at the signalized intersections. Traffic volumes are expected to increase steadily through the year 2020, the design year for the proposed project. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 5A Modified, which is the preferred alternative, would provide intersection improvements and auxiliary lands to support intersection improvements. Alternative 5B would widen MF 210 to provide reversible, barrier-separated median high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Alternative 5C would widen MD 210 to provide concurrent flow HOV lanes. Intersection improvements being considered in conjuction with each action alternative would range from at-gradening to grade-separated interchange construction. Two options are considered for each action alternative. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $233.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve traffic operations and safety conditions along the affected section of MD 210. Local and regional connections would improve substantially, particularly for Prince Georges County commuters traveling to and from the District of Columbia and Virginia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative, totaling 165.1 acres, would displace six to 15 residences, 13 businesses, and one church. Land would be taken from 96 residential properties, 40 commercial properties, and one parks/recreational area. One historic site would be affected. Acreage to be taken would include 126.7 acres of residential land, 34 acres of commercial property, one acre of parkland, and 0.2 acre of historically significant land. Construction activities would affect 9,140 linear feet along 13 streams, 3.4 acres of floodplain, 1.3 acres of wetlands, and 58.2 acres of woodland. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 01-0324D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040331, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, July 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-01-F KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36435026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36363061; 10881-040331_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 10-mile segment of Maryland Route 210 (MD 210), also known as Indian Head Highway, in Prince Georges County, Maryland is proposed. The study corridor extends from Interstate 95 /Interstate 495 (I-95/I-495), also known as the Capital Beltway, to MD 228. The six-lane, divided arterial connects the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area at its northern terminus with the town of Indian Head in Charles County, approximately 20 miles south of the Prince Georges County/Washington line. The highway serves as a major route connecting I-95/I-495, the District of Columbia, and Virginia with southern Prince Georges County and Charles County. Eleven signalized intersections control intersections along the corridor. Peak hour delays and congestion have become particularly extreme at the signalized intersections. Traffic volumes are expected to increase steadily through the year 2020, the design year for the proposed project. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 5A Modified, which is the preferred alternative, would provide intersection improvements and auxiliary lands to support intersection improvements. Alternative 5B would widen MF 210 to provide reversible, barrier-separated median high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Alternative 5C would widen MD 210 to provide concurrent flow HOV lanes. Intersection improvements being considered in conjuction with each action alternative would range from at-gradening to grade-separated interchange construction. Two options are considered for each action alternative. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $233.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve traffic operations and safety conditions along the affected section of MD 210. Local and regional connections would improve substantially, particularly for Prince Georges County commuters traveling to and from the District of Columbia and Virginia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative, totaling 165.1 acres, would displace six to 15 residences, 13 businesses, and one church. Land would be taken from 96 residential properties, 40 commercial properties, and one parks/recreational area. One historic site would be affected. Acreage to be taken would include 126.7 acres of residential land, 34 acres of commercial property, one acre of parkland, and 0.2 acre of historically significant land. Construction activities would affect 9,140 linear feet along 13 streams, 3.4 acres of floodplain, 1.3 acres of wetlands, and 58.2 acres of woodland. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 01-0324D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040331, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, July 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-01-F KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36363061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36369504; 10867-040317_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Maryland Route 97 (MD 97) from south of Gold Mine Road to north of proposed Bordly Drive in Montgomery County, Maryland is proposed. The project study area extends approximately two miles along the MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) corridor from south of Gold Mine Road to north of Holiday Drive. MD 97 functions as a major north-south commuter route between employment areas in and around the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area, including Washington, D.C. and residential communities such as Brookeville in northern Montgomery County and other communities in Howard and Carroll counties. In Brookeville, MD 97 has a 90-degree bend in its horizontal alignment, which is rendered more dangerous by a steep vertical grade. The increasing volumes of peak hour traffic, combined with these substandard geometrics, contribute to the need to improve the overall operational characteristics of MD 97 through Brookeville. Four new alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include one alignment lying east of Brookeville and three alignments west of the town. At-grade and grade-separated designs were developed for two of the western alignments in an attempt to mitigate environmental versus community impacts. All alignment alternatives would provide for a two-lane, undivided, limited access, highway extending from MD 108 to Holiday Drive. Depending on the build alternative and design option selected, estimated costs of the project range from $12.2 million to $34.2 million. The preferred alternative (Alternative 7 Modified) would extend west of Brookeville. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $12.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove the continually increasing traffic volumes Brookeville, improve traffic operations and safety on existing MD 97, and preserve the historic character of the town. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would affect a total of 11 properties. In addition, the project would affect 6.65 acres of recreational land, 2.24 acres of historic district property, 4.84 acres of prime farmland, 1.79 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 0.1 3 acre of wetlands, 1,169.2 linear feet of stream, 3.34 acres of floodplain land, and 10.47 acres of forested land. One alternative would not be compatible with the comprehensive land use management plan for the area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 10 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). [REF]For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0457D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040317, 467 pages and maps, July 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-02-F KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 16361530; 10867 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Maryland Route 97 (MD 97) from south of Gold Mine Road to north of proposed Bordly Drive in Montgomery County, Maryland is proposed. The project study area extends approximately two miles along the MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) corridor from south of Gold Mine Road to north of Holiday Drive. MD 97 functions as a major north-south commuter route between employment areas in and around the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area, including Washington, D.C. and residential communities such as Brookeville in northern Montgomery County and other communities in Howard and Carroll counties. In Brookeville, MD 97 has a 90-degree bend in its horizontal alignment, which is rendered more dangerous by a steep vertical grade. The increasing volumes of peak hour traffic, combined with these substandard geometrics, contribute to the need to improve the overall operational characteristics of MD 97 through Brookeville. Four new alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include one alignment lying east of Brookeville and three alignments west of the town. At-grade and grade-separated designs were developed for two of the western alignments in an attempt to mitigate environmental versus community impacts. All alignment alternatives would provide for a two-lane, undivided, limited access, highway extending from MD 108 to Holiday Drive. Depending on the build alternative and design option selected, estimated costs of the project range from $12.2 million to $34.2 million. The preferred alternative (Alternative 7 Modified) would extend west of Brookeville. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $12.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove the continually increasing traffic volumes Brookeville, improve traffic operations and safety on existing MD 97, and preserve the historic character of the town. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would affect a total of 11 properties. In addition, the project would affect 6.65 acres of recreational land, 2.24 acres of historic district property, 4.84 acres of prime farmland, 1.79 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 0.1 3 acre of wetlands, 1,169.2 linear feet of stream, 3.34 acres of floodplain land, and 10.47 acres of forested land. One alternative would not be compatible with the comprehensive land use management plan for the area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 10 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). [REF]For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0457D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040317, 467 pages and maps, July 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-02-F KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Distribution and optical purity of methamphetamine found in toxic concentration in a civil aviation accident pilot fatality. AN - 66795253; 15317205 AB - Toxicological evaluation of postmortem samples collected from a pilot involved in a unique fatal civil aircraft accident is described in this paper. A one-occupant airplane was substantially damaged upon colliding with terrain in poor visibility. Remains of the pilot were found outside the aircraft. Pathological examination revealed multiple blunt force injuries and vascular congestion. The fluorescence polarization immunoassay disclosed 8.0 microg/mL amphetamines in urine. Gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric analyses determined the presence of methamphetamine (1.13 microg/mL in blood and 59.2 microg/mL in urine) and amphetamine (0.022 microg/mL in blood and 1.50 microg/mL in urine). Methamphetamine was distributed throughout the body, including the brain. The amount of methamphetamine in gastric contents was 575-fold higher than that of amphetamine. The (+)- and (-)-forms of methamphetamine were present in equal proportions in gastric contents. The methamphetamine concentration found in blood was in the range sufficient to produce toxic effects, causing performance impairment. JF - Journal of forensic sciences AU - Chaturvedi, Arvind K AU - Cardona, Patrick S AU - Soper, John W AU - Canfield, Dennis V AD - Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory (AAM-610), Aerospace Medical Research Division, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, OK 73125-5066, USA. Arvind.Chaturvedi@FAA.GOV Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 832 EP - 836 VL - 49 IS - 4 SN - 0022-1198, 0022-1198 KW - Amphetamines KW - 0 KW - Central Nervous System Stimulants KW - Index Medicus KW - Gastrointestinal Contents -- chemistry KW - Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay KW - Psychomotor Performance -- drug effects KW - Humans KW - Adult KW - Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry KW - Tissue Distribution KW - Male KW - Accidents, Aviation KW - Amphetamines -- pharmacokinetics KW - Central Nervous System Stimulants -- analysis KW - Amphetamines -- analysis KW - Central Nervous System Stimulants -- pharmacokinetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66795253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+forensic+sciences&rft.atitle=Distribution+and+optical+purity+of+methamphetamine+found+in+toxic+concentration+in+a+civil+aviation+accident+pilot+fatality.&rft.au=Chaturvedi%2C+Arvind+K%3BCardona%2C+Patrick+S%3BSoper%2C+John+W%3BCanfield%2C+Dennis+V&rft.aulast=Chaturvedi&rft.aufirst=Arvind&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=832&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+forensic+sciences&rft.issn=00221198&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-10-04 N1 - Date created - 2004-08-19 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36439565; 10844 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ERIE CANAL HARBOR PROJECT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BUFFALO INNER HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT), BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999). AN - 36437539; 10848 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an urban renewal/transit project at the 12.5-acre Inner Harbor Project site along the Buffalo River in downtown Buffalo, Erie County, New York is proposed. The site is located near the southern terminus of the Federal Transit Authority light rail rapid transit (LRRT) system. The site currently contains the Buffalo and Erie Canal Naval and Military Museum and Veteran's Memorial Park. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 1999. Regardless of the action alternative considered, the project proposed in the 1999 final EIS would have involved: 1) construction of a series of intermodal transportation components to provide linkages between harbor and landside modes, including new pedestrian paths, new bus stop/shelter facilities, and a new road through the site; 2) construction of a new 10,000-square-foot city-owned Naval Museum building to replace the current facility and development of an 8,000-square-foot outdoor exhibit area to display military artifacts; 3) construction of a 2,500-square-foot city-owned Maritime Visitor Center designed to house ticket and information functions of the development as well as exhibits and office space for a harbor master; 4) excavation of at least two inlets to provide safe moorage for Naval vessels, tourist vessels, tour boats, canal boats, water taxis, and transient boats; construction of a new waterfront esplanade along the reconfigured shoreline and a Harbor Plaza for festivals; 5) construction of a new road through the site; and 6) conversion of Marine Drive from a one-way to a two-way street. The current Naval and Military Museum and several small structures within the Veteran's Memorial Park would be demolished. The proposed action involves a more detailed version of the above-mentioned actions. The budget for the first phase of the project was estimated at $27.1 million. This draft supplemental EIS presents design changes made to better represent the historic nature of the western terminus of the Erie Canal and considers additional archaeological resources not considered in the 1999 final EIS. The newly proposed project would incorporate archaeological factures encountered on the project site as interpretive elements, including canal stones, historic streets, and building foundation ruins; restore five historic streets (Commercial, Lloyd, Hanover, Prime, and Perry streets) at historic grade; provide a re-watered Commercial Slip using a design involving reuse of existing stones from the walls of the historic slip; truncate the Hamburg Drain at the head of the re-watered Commercial Slip and install measures to capture floatable debris and to recirculation river water into the slip; create a historic interpretation program (including displays of the ruins of the Steamship Hotel and interpretation of the Central Wharf and Prime Slip); and establish seven future development parcels to accommodate approximately 225,000 square feet of development space. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would enhance public access to the Buffalo River at the project site, enhance ridership on the LRRT system, encourage intermodal connections across waterborne, transit, road, pedestrian, and bicycle routes, and facilitate private investment by capitalizing on intermodal opportunities. The new project design would greatly enhance public interpretation of the historic resources within the area surrounding the western terminus of the Erie Canal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The temporary removal and re-installation of extant Commercial Slip wall stones, construction associated with re-watering the Commercial Slip, and the new museum building for the Naval and Military Park would affect the original historic contest of the site. An increase in vessel use in the Buffalo River Channel would place additional burdens on navigation management authorities. Noise levels near the site would increase slightly. Excavation of soils for navigational purposes would result in short-term sedimentation and, in some areas, release contaminated sediment into the water column, and the canal and basins would increase the possibility of accumulation of harbor drift, particularly during the spring season. Structures associated with project would result in visual impacts that would affect low-income groups in a disproportionate manner, though these impacts would be offset by new recreational amenities at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (P.L. 88-578), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0430D, Volume 22, Number 4 and 99-0171F, Volume 23, Number 2. For the abstract of the previous draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0322D, Volume 24, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040297, 851 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Hotels KW - Harbors KW - Museums KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Waterways KW - New York KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ERIE+CANAL+HARBOR+PROJECT+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+THE+BUFFALO+INNER+HARBOR+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%29%2C+BUFFALO%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%29.&rft.title=ERIE+CANAL+HARBOR+PROJECT+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+THE+BUFFALO+INNER+HARBOR+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%29%2C+BUFFALO%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF LANDING LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, OFFSHORE LOUISIANA. AN - 36434327; 10843 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license to Gulf Landing LLC for the construction of a deepwater port and associated anchorages in the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Louisiana is proposed. The port and anchorages would be located 38 miles south of Cameron in WC-213 where water depths reach approximately 55 feet. The site is adjacent to an existing shipping fairway servicing the Calcasieu River and area ports. The port would consist primarily of a terminal to receive, store, and regasify liquefied natural gas (LNG) and five offshore pipelines, ranging from 16 to 36 inches in diameter, to transport the gas from the terminal to the existing offshore gas-gathering system. The terminal would consist of two gravity-based structures that would provide the base for LNG storage, process equipment, and ancillary facilities. The facility would be 1,100 feet long and 248 feet wide and rise 114 feet above the surface of the Gulf. The terminal would have an operational net storage capacity of 6.4 million cubic feet of LNG, which is equivalent to 3.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The facility would vaporize and deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet per day, with an annual daily average of 1.0 billion cubic feet. The facility would use open-rack vaporizer (ORV) technology for LNG regasification. If approved, it is estimated that construction and installation of the port would be completed by late 2008 and operations would begin in 2009. The port would be designed for a 30-year service life, after which it would be decommissioned. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one alternative location for port siting. The alternative locations is WC-183, which is slightly closer to shore than WC-213 and which would provide 54 feet of water depth. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help the country to meet the growing national energy demand by importing clean-burning natural gas into the Gulf Coast via the existing natural gas transmission infrastructure in the Gulf and southern Louisiana. Intrinsic to the general purpose of the port is the use of worldwide sources of natural gas to diversify sources of natural gas input into the existing pipeline infrastructure in the United States. The port would enable regasified LNG to be delivered into the existing pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf and connect with existing offshore third-party pipelines. The gas would then be redelivered by shippers to the national gas pipeline grid through connections with other manor interstate and intrastate pipelines. The facility would create an artificial reef, increasing fishery resources in the Gulf. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline installation would result in bottom disturbance and suspension of sediments into the water column in marine and coastal areas. Use of ORV technology would result in the discharge of water into the area around the terminal, decreasing water temperature, increasing turbidity, and increasing dissolved oxygen content. Establishment of a 1,500-foot safety zone around the terminal would restrict the use of the area by commercial fishery users. Placement of the LNG facility in a shipping lane and the ships traveling to and from the facility would impinge somewhat on shipping traffic in this area of the GUlf. The facility would emit low levels of criteria pollutants and noise. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974. JF - EPA number: 040291, 412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fisheries KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36378439; 10844-040292_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36378305; 10844-040292_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ERIE CANAL HARBOR PROJECT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BUFFALO INNER HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT), BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ERIE CANAL HARBOR PROJECT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BUFFALO INNER HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT), BUFFALO, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999). AN - 36370182; 10848-040297_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an urban renewal/transit project at the 12.5-acre Inner Harbor Project site along the Buffalo River in downtown Buffalo, Erie County, New York is proposed. The site is located near the southern terminus of the Federal Transit Authority light rail rapid transit (LRRT) system. The site currently contains the Buffalo and Erie Canal Naval and Military Museum and Veteran's Memorial Park. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of October 1999. Regardless of the action alternative considered, the project proposed in the 1999 final EIS would have involved: 1) construction of a series of intermodal transportation components to provide linkages between harbor and landside modes, including new pedestrian paths, new bus stop/shelter facilities, and a new road through the site; 2) construction of a new 10,000-square-foot city-owned Naval Museum building to replace the current facility and development of an 8,000-square-foot outdoor exhibit area to display military artifacts; 3) construction of a 2,500-square-foot city-owned Maritime Visitor Center designed to house ticket and information functions of the development as well as exhibits and office space for a harbor master; 4) excavation of at least two inlets to provide safe moorage for Naval vessels, tourist vessels, tour boats, canal boats, water taxis, and transient boats; construction of a new waterfront esplanade along the reconfigured shoreline and a Harbor Plaza for festivals; 5) construction of a new road through the site; and 6) conversion of Marine Drive from a one-way to a two-way street. The current Naval and Military Museum and several small structures within the Veteran's Memorial Park would be demolished. The proposed action involves a more detailed version of the above-mentioned actions. The budget for the first phase of the project was estimated at $27.1 million. This draft supplemental EIS presents design changes made to better represent the historic nature of the western terminus of the Erie Canal and considers additional archaeological resources not considered in the 1999 final EIS. The newly proposed project would incorporate archaeological factures encountered on the project site as interpretive elements, including canal stones, historic streets, and building foundation ruins; restore five historic streets (Commercial, Lloyd, Hanover, Prime, and Perry streets) at historic grade; provide a re-watered Commercial Slip using a design involving reuse of existing stones from the walls of the historic slip; truncate the Hamburg Drain at the head of the re-watered Commercial Slip and install measures to capture floatable debris and to recirculation river water into the slip; create a historic interpretation program (including displays of the ruins of the Steamship Hotel and interpretation of the Central Wharf and Prime Slip); and establish seven future development parcels to accommodate approximately 225,000 square feet of development space. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site would enhance public access to the Buffalo River at the project site, enhance ridership on the LRRT system, encourage intermodal connections across waterborne, transit, road, pedestrian, and bicycle routes, and facilitate private investment by capitalizing on intermodal opportunities. The new project design would greatly enhance public interpretation of the historic resources within the area surrounding the western terminus of the Erie Canal. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The temporary removal and re-installation of extant Commercial Slip wall stones, construction associated with re-watering the Commercial Slip, and the new museum building for the Naval and Military Park would affect the original historic contest of the site. An increase in vessel use in the Buffalo River Channel would place additional burdens on navigation management authorities. Noise levels near the site would increase slightly. Excavation of soils for navigational purposes would result in short-term sedimentation and, in some areas, release contaminated sediment into the water column, and the canal and basins would increase the possibility of accumulation of harbor drift, particularly during the spring season. Structures associated with project would result in visual impacts that would affect low-income groups in a disproportionate manner, though these impacts would be offset by new recreational amenities at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (P.L. 88-578), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0430D, Volume 22, Number 4 and 99-0171F, Volume 23, Number 2. For the abstract of the previous draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0322D, Volume 24, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040297, 851 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Hotels KW - Harbors KW - Museums KW - Navigation KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Waterways KW - New York KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ERIE+CANAL+HARBOR+PROJECT+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+THE+BUFFALO+INNER+HARBOR+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%29%2C+BUFFALO%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%29.&rft.title=ERIE+CANAL+HARBOR+PROJECT+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+THE+BUFFALO+INNER+HARBOR+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%29%2C+BUFFALO%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF LANDING LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, OFFSHORE LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GULF LANDING LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, OFFSHORE LOUISIANA. AN - 36369859; 10843-040291_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a license to Gulf Landing LLC for the construction of a deepwater port and associated anchorages in the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Louisiana is proposed. The port and anchorages would be located 38 miles south of Cameron in WC-213 where water depths reach approximately 55 feet. The site is adjacent to an existing shipping fairway servicing the Calcasieu River and area ports. The port would consist primarily of a terminal to receive, store, and regasify liquefied natural gas (LNG) and five offshore pipelines, ranging from 16 to 36 inches in diameter, to transport the gas from the terminal to the existing offshore gas-gathering system. The terminal would consist of two gravity-based structures that would provide the base for LNG storage, process equipment, and ancillary facilities. The facility would be 1,100 feet long and 248 feet wide and rise 114 feet above the surface of the Gulf. The terminal would have an operational net storage capacity of 6.4 million cubic feet of LNG, which is equivalent to 3.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The facility would vaporize and deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet per day, with an annual daily average of 1.0 billion cubic feet. The facility would use open-rack vaporizer (ORV) technology for LNG regasification. If approved, it is estimated that construction and installation of the port would be completed by late 2008 and operations would begin in 2009. The port would be designed for a 30-year service life, after which it would be decommissioned. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one alternative location for port siting. The alternative locations is WC-183, which is slightly closer to shore than WC-213 and which would provide 54 feet of water depth. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help the country to meet the growing national energy demand by importing clean-burning natural gas into the Gulf Coast via the existing natural gas transmission infrastructure in the Gulf and southern Louisiana. Intrinsic to the general purpose of the port is the use of worldwide sources of natural gas to diversify sources of natural gas input into the existing pipeline infrastructure in the United States. The port would enable regasified LNG to be delivered into the existing pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf and connect with existing offshore third-party pipelines. The gas would then be redelivered by shippers to the national gas pipeline grid through connections with other manor interstate and intrastate pipelines. The facility would create an artificial reef, increasing fishery resources in the Gulf. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline installation would result in bottom disturbance and suspension of sediments into the water column in marine and coastal areas. Use of ORV technology would result in the discharge of water into the area around the terminal, decreasing water temperature, increasing turbidity, and increasing dissolved oxygen content. Establishment of a 1,500-foot safety zone around the terminal would restrict the use of the area by commercial fishery users. Placement of the LNG facility in a shipping lane and the ships traveling to and from the facility would impinge somewhat on shipping traffic in this area of the GUlf. The facility would emit low levels of criteria pollutants and noise. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974. JF - EPA number: 040291, 412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Fisheries KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Licensing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+LANDING+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+OFFSHORE+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=GULF+LANDING+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+OFFSHORE+LOUISIANA.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36368900; 10844-040292_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36365429; 10844-040292_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The alternative preferred by the Montana Department of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide a two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 17 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands The project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36437432; 10840 AB - PURPOSE: The preservation of rights-of-way and the construction of new transportation corridor extending six miles from State Road (SR) 56 to the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort interchange (Exit 51) on Interstate 15 (I-15) in Iron County, Utah are proposed. The new transportation corridor would connect regional transportation systems and link rural residents with job centers. Existing roadways within the project area are either not developed, unimproved, or do not meet current design standards. While the existing traffic network satisfactorily accommodate current traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service, planned growth requires that an upgraded transportation network be effected. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Environmental impacts falling into 15 categories are discusses; key impacts are related to land use, cultural resources, wildlife resources, and traffic-generated noise levels. Alternative 2, the western build alternative, would begin at the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort (Exit 15) interchange and continue westward to approximately 5600 West, curve northward to 5700 West, follow 5700 West due north to intersect with DR 56, with a bend to the northwest so that the intersection with SR 56 is at a 90-degree angle. The 5.6-mile facility would consists of a two-lane roadway and an unpaved trail within a 100-foot rights-of-way. Alternative 3 follows 5500 West north and south. In all other respects it is identical to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would extend 5.7 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transportation corridor would improve the transportation network in accordance with the Iron County Transportation Master Plan, thereby supporting the mobility of goods and people and improving local circulation and access for residents and emergency service vehicles. The new facility would provide additional direct access to the I-15 industrial corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for alternatives 2 and 3 would be 59.6 and 65.299 acres, respectively; respective farmland displacements are 55.97 acres and 29.16 acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at three and seven residential locations, respectively. Stream realignment would occur on Shurtz Creek and the Shurtz Creek South Branch. Alternative 2 would also impact one wellhead. Either alternative could affect foraging resources for bald eagle and ferruginous hawks, and Alternative 2 would affect 5.76 acres of Utah prairie dog habitat and foraging sources for Swainson's hawks. Ten to 16 archeaological sites would be disturbed. The roadway would constitute an aesthetic intrusion in a rural area. JF - EPA number: 040288, 237 pages and maps, June 17, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36361983; 10840-040288_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The preservation of rights-of-way and the construction of new transportation corridor extending six miles from State Road (SR) 56 to the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort interchange (Exit 51) on Interstate 15 (I-15) in Iron County, Utah are proposed. The new transportation corridor would connect regional transportation systems and link rural residents with job centers. Existing roadways within the project area are either not developed, unimproved, or do not meet current design standards. While the existing traffic network satisfactorily accommodate current traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service, planned growth requires that an upgraded transportation network be effected. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Environmental impacts falling into 15 categories are discusses; key impacts are related to land use, cultural resources, wildlife resources, and traffic-generated noise levels. Alternative 2, the western build alternative, would begin at the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort (Exit 15) interchange and continue westward to approximately 5600 West, curve northward to 5700 West, follow 5700 West due north to intersect with DR 56, with a bend to the northwest so that the intersection with SR 56 is at a 90-degree angle. The 5.6-mile facility would consists of a two-lane roadway and an unpaved trail within a 100-foot rights-of-way. Alternative 3 follows 5500 West north and south. In all other respects it is identical to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would extend 5.7 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transportation corridor would improve the transportation network in accordance with the Iron County Transportation Master Plan, thereby supporting the mobility of goods and people and improving local circulation and access for residents and emergency service vehicles. The new facility would provide additional direct access to the I-15 industrial corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for alternatives 2 and 3 would be 59.6 and 65.299 acres, respectively; respective farmland displacements are 55.97 acres and 29.16 acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at three and seven residential locations, respectively. Stream realignment would occur on Shurtz Creek and the Shurtz Creek South Branch. Alternative 2 would also impact one wellhead. Either alternative could affect foraging resources for bald eagle and ferruginous hawks, and Alternative 2 would affect 5.76 acres of Utah prairie dog habitat and foraging sources for Swainson's hawks. Ten to 16 archeaological sites would be disturbed. The roadway would constitute an aesthetic intrusion in a rural area. JF - EPA number: 040288, 237 pages and maps, June 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PIONEER MOUNTAIN TO EDDYVILLE, US 20, LINCOLN COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PIONEER MOUNTAIN TO EDDYVILLE, US 20, LINCOLN COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36361681; 10837-040285_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a highway within the US 20 corridor from Pioneer Mountain to Eddyville in Lincoln County, Oregon is proposed. The proposed project would replace an existing 10-mile section of US 20, providing a 7.3-mile facility on a new alignment. The existing highway cannot be used by large commercial vehicles. Crash and fatality rates along this portion of highway, which includes 14 substandard horizontal curves and 58 vertical curves that may not provide safe stopping sight distances, are significantly higher than state averages. The new roadway would provide two 12-foot travel lanes, a 14- to 16-foot median where needed, and 12-foot climbing lanes in both directions approaching the highest elevation near Crystal Creek. This final EIS is a continuation of an early environmental review process which resulted in a draft EIS published in 1993 and a second draft published in December 2003. During the 1993 review, two build alternatives were considered, a public hearing was held, and a preferred alternative was selected. Lack of funding resulted in the project being halted; hence, a final EIS was not completed. Moreover, the 1993 draft EIS was state funded; hence, had no federal involvement. This final EIS reaffirms, refines, and updates the environmental evaluation of the build alternatives forwarded during the 1993 review. For the purposes of analysis, the project is divided into two physical units. Unit 1 would extend 2.2 miles from Pioneer Mountain mile post (MP) 14.68), to the east side of the Yaquina River, roughly two miles from the western end of the project; Unit 1 would generally follow the alignment of the existing roadway. Unit 2 would extend 5.1 miles on a new alignment from a point east of Eddyville (MP 24.75) to the existing highway at the eastern terminus. A 1,240-foot bridge would be constructed to span Crystal Creek north of a beaver pond wetland. Cost of the project, which would commence in 2005 and continue for approximately four years, is estimated at approximately $110 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would be shorter and safer and offer a higher traffic capacity than the existing facility. Commercial trucks would be able to use the facility, obviating the use of more circuitous routes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 354 acres, of which more than 75 percent is zoned for timber conservation and all of which is held in private ownership. A total of 23 landowners would be affected, and seven residences would be displaced. In addition, 72 acres of agricultural conservation land would be developed for transportation uses. The habitat of red-legged frogs, a federal species of concern and a state-listed sensitive species, could be affected. The project would affect 42,000 square feet of jurisdictional wetlands within a total of 17 sites, and approximately 1,860 feet of stream channel downstream of the Crystal Creek bridge could be affected. potentially degrading salmonid spawning areas. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed state thresholds for noise increase in the vicinity of Eddyville School playfield. Transformers containing hazardous materials may have leaded such materials to soils that would have to be removed, and other contaminated soils would be encountered during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0222D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040285, 345 pages and maps, June 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-03-1-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PIONEER+MOUNTAIN+TO+EDDYVILLE%2C+US+20%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=PIONEER+MOUNTAIN+TO+EDDYVILLE%2C+US+20%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Accurate assignment of ethanol origin in postmortem urine: liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometric determination of serotonin metabolites. AN - 71912123; 15135094 AB - Toxicological examination of fatal aviation accident victims routinely includes analysis of ethanol levels. However, distinguishing between antemortem ingestion and postmortem microbial formation complicates all positive ethanol results. Development of a single analytical approach to determine concentrations of 5-hydroxytryptophol (5-HTOL) and 5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid (5-HIAA), two well-known metabolites of serotonin, has provided a convenient, rapid and reliable solution to this problem. Antemortem ethanol leads to an elevation in the 5-HTOL/5-HIAA ratio for 11-19 h after acute ingestion. The liquid-liquid extracts of postmortem urine samples were subjected to liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) for the simultaneous quantitation of these two analytes, yielding detection limits of 0.1 ng/ml for each. Examination of the 5-HTOL/5-HIAA ratio was undertaken for 44 urine samples known to be antemortem ethanol-positive or antemortem ethanol-negative. Recent ethanol ingestion was conveniently and accurately separated using a 5-HTOL/5-HIAA ratio of 15 pmol/nmol, a value previously suggested using human volunteers. All 21 ethanol-negative postmortem samples were below this cutoff, while all 23 ethanol-positive postmortem samples were above this cutoff. Thus, we recommend the employment of this cutoff value, established using this straightforward LC-MS procedure, to confirm or deny recent antemortem ethanol ingestion in postmortem urine samples. JF - Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences AU - Johnson, R D AU - Lewis, R J AU - Canfield, D V AU - Blank, C L AD - Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, AAM-610, Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6901, USA. r.d.johnson@faa.gov Y1 - 2004/06/15/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Jun 15 SP - 223 EP - 234 VL - 805 IS - 2 SN - 1570-0232, 1570-0232 KW - Hydroxytryptophol KW - 154-02-9 KW - Ethanol KW - 3K9958V90M KW - Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid KW - 54-16-0 KW - Index Medicus KW - Sensitivity and Specificity KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Humans KW - Ethanol -- urine KW - Postmortem Changes KW - Hydroxytryptophol -- urine KW - Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid -- methods KW - Mass Spectrometry -- methods KW - Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid -- urine UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71912123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+chromatography.+B%2C+Analytical+technologies+in+the+biomedical+and+life+sciences&rft.atitle=Accurate+assignment+of+ethanol+origin+in+postmortem+urine%3A+liquid+chromatographic-mass+spectrometric+determination+of+serotonin+metabolites.&rft.au=Johnson%2C+R+D%3BLewis%2C+R+J%3BCanfield%2C+D+V%3BBlank%2C+C+L&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-06-15&rft.volume=805&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=223&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+chromatography.+B%2C+Analytical+technologies+in+the+biomedical+and+life+sciences&rft.issn=15700232&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-01-21 N1 - Date created - 2004-05-11 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36429743; 10828 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the main runway and of a parallel runway, expansion of the building area, and associated land acquisition and other developments at Flying Cloud Airport (FCA), Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota are proposed. The airport is classified as a general aviation minor airport in the Metropolitan Airport System, which included Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, St. Paul Downtown Airport, six minor airports, and three special purpose airports. FCA was one of the first airports in the region and has had a more sophisticated mix of aircraft types than many of the other general aviation airports. Major issues identified during scoping include that associated with the natural environment, economic conditions, land use compatibility, aircraft noise, social impacts, historic resources, a wildlife refuge near the airport, and bird-aircraft collisions, including collisions with bald eagles. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of January 2000. An August 2001 draft supplement addressed four major changes in planning that took place following the publication of the draft EIS. Three alternatives (Alternatives C, D, and E) were eliminated from consideration, leaving only Alternative F and the No Action Alternative, and the proposed action, which would involve implementation of Alternative F coupled with additional noise mitigation measures. Other changes involved fleet mix, runway use, and mitigation measures with respect to impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative F, with the mitigation measures, and the No Action Alternative have been retained for consideration in this final EIS. Alternative F, modified, the preferred alternative, would involve the development of a new south building area to accommodate existing and future demand for additional hangars; extension of the main runway (9R/27L) 3,900 feet to 5,000 feet and the parallel runway (9L/27R) from 3,600 feet to 3,900 feet; and acquisition of 100 acres of lad and 24 acres of avigation easements for approach protection. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's Ordinance 51 would be revised to life the restriction limiting jet aircraft to 20,000 pounds, allowing maximum utilization of the extended main runway by general aviation aircraft. Development costs are estimated at $60.5 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would satisfy aviation requirements of the airport through the year 2010. Sufficient land would be acquired to protect aviation operations from incompatible development, and sufficient hangar space would be provided to accommodate existing and future demand. Lengthening of the main runway would induce appropriate general aviation aircraft operators to use the airport rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and meet the requirements of insurers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A 5,000-foot main runway would be less than necessary for full utilization under all conditions by all of the light- to medium-sized business jets. Expansion of airport activities would result in 3,600 more flights by the year 2010 over areas where birds congregate at elevations of less than 2,000 feet above ground. The plan would expand the extent of existing residential land and planned residential land that would be incompatible with airport uses due to aircraft noise levels. excessive noise levels. Four households would be displaced. The wildlife refuge would be affected by 6,328 overflights at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0026D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0364D, Volume 25, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040276, Volume I--327 pages and maps, Volume II--198 pages, June 10, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 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/36429743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36371297; 10828-040276_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the main runway and of a parallel runway, expansion of the building area, and associated land acquisition and other developments at Flying Cloud Airport (FCA), Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota are proposed. The airport is classified as a general aviation minor airport in the Metropolitan Airport System, which included Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, St. Paul Downtown Airport, six minor airports, and three special purpose airports. FCA was one of the first airports in the region and has had a more sophisticated mix of aircraft types than many of the other general aviation airports. Major issues identified during scoping include that associated with the natural environment, economic conditions, land use compatibility, aircraft noise, social impacts, historic resources, a wildlife refuge near the airport, and bird-aircraft collisions, including collisions with bald eagles. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of January 2000. An August 2001 draft supplement addressed four major changes in planning that took place following the publication of the draft EIS. Three alternatives (Alternatives C, D, and E) were eliminated from consideration, leaving only Alternative F and the No Action Alternative, and the proposed action, which would involve implementation of Alternative F coupled with additional noise mitigation measures. Other changes involved fleet mix, runway use, and mitigation measures with respect to impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative F, with the mitigation measures, and the No Action Alternative have been retained for consideration in this final EIS. Alternative F, modified, the preferred alternative, would involve the development of a new south building area to accommodate existing and future demand for additional hangars; extension of the main runway (9R/27L) 3,900 feet to 5,000 feet and the parallel runway (9L/27R) from 3,600 feet to 3,900 feet; and acquisition of 100 acres of lad and 24 acres of avigation easements for approach protection. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's Ordinance 51 would be revised to life the restriction limiting jet aircraft to 20,000 pounds, allowing maximum utilization of the extended main runway by general aviation aircraft. Development costs are estimated at $60.5 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would satisfy aviation requirements of the airport through the year 2010. Sufficient land would be acquired to protect aviation operations from incompatible development, and sufficient hangar space would be provided to accommodate existing and future demand. Lengthening of the main runway would induce appropriate general aviation aircraft operators to use the airport rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and meet the requirements of insurers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A 5,000-foot main runway would be less than necessary for full utilization under all conditions by all of the light- to medium-sized business jets. Expansion of airport activities would result in 3,600 more flights by the year 2010 over areas where birds congregate at elevations of less than 2,000 feet above ground. The plan would expand the extent of existing residential land and planned residential land that would be incompatible with airport uses due to aircraft noise levels. excessive noise levels. Four households would be displaced. The wildlife refuge would be affected by 6,328 overflights at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0026D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0364D, Volume 25, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040276, Volume I--327 pages and maps, Volume II--198 pages, June 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 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/36371297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36358302; 10828-040276_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the main runway and of a parallel runway, expansion of the building area, and associated land acquisition and other developments at Flying Cloud Airport (FCA), Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota are proposed. The airport is classified as a general aviation minor airport in the Metropolitan Airport System, which included Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, St. Paul Downtown Airport, six minor airports, and three special purpose airports. FCA was one of the first airports in the region and has had a more sophisticated mix of aircraft types than many of the other general aviation airports. Major issues identified during scoping include that associated with the natural environment, economic conditions, land use compatibility, aircraft noise, social impacts, historic resources, a wildlife refuge near the airport, and bird-aircraft collisions, including collisions with bald eagles. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of January 2000. An August 2001 draft supplement addressed four major changes in planning that took place following the publication of the draft EIS. Three alternatives (Alternatives C, D, and E) were eliminated from consideration, leaving only Alternative F and the No Action Alternative, and the proposed action, which would involve implementation of Alternative F coupled with additional noise mitigation measures. Other changes involved fleet mix, runway use, and mitigation measures with respect to impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative F, with the mitigation measures, and the No Action Alternative have been retained for consideration in this final EIS. Alternative F, modified, the preferred alternative, would involve the development of a new south building area to accommodate existing and future demand for additional hangars; extension of the main runway (9R/27L) 3,900 feet to 5,000 feet and the parallel runway (9L/27R) from 3,600 feet to 3,900 feet; and acquisition of 100 acres of lad and 24 acres of avigation easements for approach protection. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's Ordinance 51 would be revised to life the restriction limiting jet aircraft to 20,000 pounds, allowing maximum utilization of the extended main runway by general aviation aircraft. Development costs are estimated at $60.5 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would satisfy aviation requirements of the airport through the year 2010. Sufficient land would be acquired to protect aviation operations from incompatible development, and sufficient hangar space would be provided to accommodate existing and future demand. Lengthening of the main runway would induce appropriate general aviation aircraft operators to use the airport rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and meet the requirements of insurers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A 5,000-foot main runway would be less than necessary for full utilization under all conditions by all of the light- to medium-sized business jets. Expansion of airport activities would result in 3,600 more flights by the year 2010 over areas where birds congregate at elevations of less than 2,000 feet above ground. The plan would expand the extent of existing residential land and planned residential land that would be incompatible with airport uses due to aircraft noise levels. excessive noise levels. Four households would be displaced. The wildlife refuge would be affected by 6,328 overflights at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0026D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0364D, Volume 25, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040276, Volume I--327 pages and maps, Volume II--198 pages, June 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 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/36358302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT, EDEN PRAIRIE. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36358197; 10828-040276_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the main runway and of a parallel runway, expansion of the building area, and associated land acquisition and other developments at Flying Cloud Airport (FCA), Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota are proposed. The airport is classified as a general aviation minor airport in the Metropolitan Airport System, which included Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, St. Paul Downtown Airport, six minor airports, and three special purpose airports. FCA was one of the first airports in the region and has had a more sophisticated mix of aircraft types than many of the other general aviation airports. Major issues identified during scoping include that associated with the natural environment, economic conditions, land use compatibility, aircraft noise, social impacts, historic resources, a wildlife refuge near the airport, and bird-aircraft collisions, including collisions with bald eagles. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of January 2000. An August 2001 draft supplement addressed four major changes in planning that took place following the publication of the draft EIS. Three alternatives (Alternatives C, D, and E) were eliminated from consideration, leaving only Alternative F and the No Action Alternative, and the proposed action, which would involve implementation of Alternative F coupled with additional noise mitigation measures. Other changes involved fleet mix, runway use, and mitigation measures with respect to impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative F, with the mitigation measures, and the No Action Alternative have been retained for consideration in this final EIS. Alternative F, modified, the preferred alternative, would involve the development of a new south building area to accommodate existing and future demand for additional hangars; extension of the main runway (9R/27L) 3,900 feet to 5,000 feet and the parallel runway (9L/27R) from 3,600 feet to 3,900 feet; and acquisition of 100 acres of lad and 24 acres of avigation easements for approach protection. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's Ordinance 51 would be revised to life the restriction limiting jet aircraft to 20,000 pounds, allowing maximum utilization of the extended main runway by general aviation aircraft. Development costs are estimated at $60.5 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.47. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would satisfy aviation requirements of the airport through the year 2010. Sufficient land would be acquired to protect aviation operations from incompatible development, and sufficient hangar space would be provided to accommodate existing and future demand. Lengthening of the main runway would induce appropriate general aviation aircraft operators to use the airport rather than Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and meet the requirements of insurers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A 5,000-foot main runway would be less than necessary for full utilization under all conditions by all of the light- to medium-sized business jets. Expansion of airport activities would result in 3,600 more flights by the year 2010 over areas where birds congregate at elevations of less than 2,000 feet above ground. The plan would expand the extent of existing residential land and planned residential land that would be incompatible with airport uses due to aircraft noise levels. excessive noise levels. Four households would be displaced. The wildlife refuge would be affected by 6,328 overflights at altitudes of less than 2,000 feet per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 00-0026D, Volume 24, Number 1 and 01-0364D, Volume 25, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040276, Volume I--327 pages and maps, Volume II--198 pages, June 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 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/36358197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=EXPANSION+OF+FLYING+CLOUD+AIRPORT%2C+EDEN+PRAIRIE.+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36371114; 10823-040271_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36371114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36370726; 10823-040271_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36370726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36368273; 10823-040271_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36368273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 16352356; 10823 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/16352356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Groundwater Effects from Highway Tire Shred Use AN - 19700898; 6110398 AB - Approximately 250,000 shredded tires have been used to construct a highway exit ramp as part of a demonstration project. One upgradient well was installed before the tire shreds were put in place. Two downgradient wells and two tire fill sampling ports were installed during the project. Levels of organic compounds and metals have been monitored since the project was completed in May of 2001. Organic compounds were not detected in the leachate or downgradient groundwater in significant amounts. Arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn) were quantified in both filtered and unfiltered samples. Of most concern is the source of elevated levels of Ba, Cd, Fe, Mn, and Zn in filtered samples when compared with water quality standards. Zn, Cd, and Ba are elevated in one of the tire fill ports, whereas Fe and Mn have been consistently elevated in the downgradient wells. The elevated Zn, Cd, and Ba may be related to the use of shredded tires. The elevated Fe and Mn may be associated with traffic on the adjacent interstate and ramp and the hydrogeology of the site. The concentrations of iron and manganese in the downgradient groundwater would be a public health concern if the water were used for human consumption. It is important to evaluate the combined long-term effects of tire shreds and runoff from roadways on groundwater quality where tire shreds are used in highway construction. JF - Environmental Forensics AU - Brophy, M AU - Graney, J AD - New York State Department of Transportation, Binghamton, NY, USA Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - Jun 2004 SP - 79 EP - 84 VL - 5 IS - 2 SN - 1527-5922, 1527-5922 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Heavy metals KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - Recycling KW - Water quality KW - Lead KW - Zinc KW - Cadmium KW - Manganese KW - Highways KW - Metals KW - Arsenic KW - Environmental impact KW - Tires KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Mercury KW - Organic Compounds KW - Groundwater KW - Iron KW - Runoff KW - Rubber products KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19700898?accountid=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=Environmental+Forensics&rft.atitle=Groundwater+Effects+from+Highway+Tire+Shred+Use&rft.au=Brophy%2C+M%3BGraney%2C+J&rft.aulast=Brophy&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=79&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Forensics&rft.issn=15275922&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15275920490454337 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Metals; Arsenic; Heavy metals; Environmental impact; Water quality; Recycling; Lead; Tires; Mercury; Groundwater pollution; Highways; Iron; Manganese; Runoff; Rubber products; Zinc; Groundwater Pollution; Cadmium; Organic Compounds; Groundwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15275920490454337 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PERMANENT WTC PATH TERMINAL IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36436010; 10810 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Permanent World Trade Center (ETC) PATH Terminal at the WTC site in Lower Manhattan, New York are proposed. The project would involve the reconstruction of a permanent terminal at the WTC site for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) system operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. PATH is an electrified, heavy-rail transit system, with 13 stations in New York and New Jersey. The terminal would be a full service, regional transportation hub that would be coordinated with the existing and future transportation infrastructure, WTC site re-development, and the surrounding area. The project would be funded as part of the federal government's $4.55 billion Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Effort, which was committed to New York City following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Trans-Hudson service between New Jersey and New York has long been an integral part of the Lower Manhattan transportation system. Prior to the terrorist attacks, the WTC PATH Terminal served some 67,000 daily boardings and was the gateway to Lower Manhattan for most commuters from west of the Hudson River. The attacks resulted in extensive damage to the PATH system including destruction of the WTC Terminal. This draft EIS considers three alternatives, specifically, a No Action Alternative, a terminal with a Liberty Plaza Connection, and a terminal without a Liberty Plaza Connection. The draft EIS also considers design options for components of the terminal, including ventilation structures, a Route 9A pedestrian bridge, and a river water cooling system. The No Action Alternative would maintain temporary PATH service between New Jersey and Lower Manhattan until elements of the WTC redevelopment plan precluded operations, the station would not safely accommodate passenger demand, or the major elements of the station exceeded their useful service life. A new terminal, with a Liberty Plaza connection, would result in the provision of a new four-level terminal on the WTC site. Access to five tracks and four 10-car platforms would be provided at the platform level. The mezzanine level, located just above the platform level, would house fire equipment, vertical circulation facilities, and up to 5,000 square feet of retail services. The concourse level would provide access to offices and retail space on the WTC site, the World Financial Center, trans-Hudson ferries, Battery Park City, Fulton Street Transit Center's Dey Street concourse, and New York City Transit's Cortlandt Street services and WTC (E) subway stations. The terminal building would be constructed within the eastern portion of the WTC site along Church Street. Cost of this alternative is estimated at $2.033 billion. If the terminal is provided without the Liberty Plaza connection, the terminal would not include a pedestrian concourse under Church Street between the WTC site and Liberty Plaza Park. Total project costs for this alternative would be approximately $81 million lower than the estimate for the terminal with the connection. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would re-establish and enhance transportation facilities and infrastructure that existed at the WTC complex prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and ensure the long-term accessibility and economic vitality of Lower Manhattan. The facility would support the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan, increase public transportation ridership, and ease commuting to Lower Manhattan. The project would create thousands of jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would impact historic structures and archaeological resources within and near the construction site. Noise levels during construction would exceed federal standards for residential uses, and noise and vibration generated by trains would also exceed federal standards during terminal operation. Tunneling beneath Route 9A could encounter contaminated materials, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metal toxins. 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.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040257, Final EIS--678 pages and maps, Appendices--755 pages, May 28, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Urban Structures KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PERMANENT WTC PATH TERMINAL IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - PERMANENT WTC PATH TERMINAL IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370538; 10810-040257_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Permanent World Trade Center (ETC) PATH Terminal at the WTC site in Lower Manhattan, New York are proposed. The project would involve the reconstruction of a permanent terminal at the WTC site for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) system operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. PATH is an electrified, heavy-rail transit system, with 13 stations in New York and New Jersey. The terminal would be a full service, regional transportation hub that would be coordinated with the existing and future transportation infrastructure, WTC site re-development, and the surrounding area. The project would be funded as part of the federal government's $4.55 billion Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Effort, which was committed to New York City following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Trans-Hudson service between New Jersey and New York has long been an integral part of the Lower Manhattan transportation system. Prior to the terrorist attacks, the WTC PATH Terminal served some 67,000 daily boardings and was the gateway to Lower Manhattan for most commuters from west of the Hudson River. The attacks resulted in extensive damage to the PATH system including destruction of the WTC Terminal. This draft EIS considers three alternatives, specifically, a No Action Alternative, a terminal with a Liberty Plaza Connection, and a terminal without a Liberty Plaza Connection. The draft EIS also considers design options for components of the terminal, including ventilation structures, a Route 9A pedestrian bridge, and a river water cooling system. The No Action Alternative would maintain temporary PATH service between New Jersey and Lower Manhattan until elements of the WTC redevelopment plan precluded operations, the station would not safely accommodate passenger demand, or the major elements of the station exceeded their useful service life. A new terminal, with a Liberty Plaza connection, would result in the provision of a new four-level terminal on the WTC site. Access to five tracks and four 10-car platforms would be provided at the platform level. The mezzanine level, located just above the platform level, would house fire equipment, vertical circulation facilities, and up to 5,000 square feet of retail services. The concourse level would provide access to offices and retail space on the WTC site, the World Financial Center, trans-Hudson ferries, Battery Park City, Fulton Street Transit Center's Dey Street concourse, and New York City Transit's Cortlandt Street services and WTC (E) subway stations. The terminal building would be constructed within the eastern portion of the WTC site along Church Street. Cost of this alternative is estimated at $2.033 billion. If the terminal is provided without the Liberty Plaza connection, the terminal would not include a pedestrian concourse under Church Street between the WTC site and Liberty Plaza Park. Total project costs for this alternative would be approximately $81 million lower than the estimate for the terminal with the connection. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would re-establish and enhance transportation facilities and infrastructure that existed at the WTC complex prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and ensure the long-term accessibility and economic vitality of Lower Manhattan. The facility would support the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan, increase public transportation ridership, and ease commuting to Lower Manhattan. The project would create thousands of jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would impact historic structures and archaeological resources within and near the construction site. Noise levels during construction would exceed federal standards for residential uses, and noise and vibration generated by trains would also exceed federal standards during terminal operation. Tunneling beneath Route 9A could encounter contaminated materials, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metal toxins. 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.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040257, Final EIS--678 pages and maps, Appendices--755 pages, May 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Urban Structures KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PERMANENT WTC PATH TERMINAL IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - PERMANENT WTC PATH TERMINAL IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370495; 10810-040257_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Permanent World Trade Center (ETC) PATH Terminal at the WTC site in Lower Manhattan, New York are proposed. The project would involve the reconstruction of a permanent terminal at the WTC site for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) system operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. PATH is an electrified, heavy-rail transit system, with 13 stations in New York and New Jersey. The terminal would be a full service, regional transportation hub that would be coordinated with the existing and future transportation infrastructure, WTC site re-development, and the surrounding area. The project would be funded as part of the federal government's $4.55 billion Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Effort, which was committed to New York City following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Trans-Hudson service between New Jersey and New York has long been an integral part of the Lower Manhattan transportation system. Prior to the terrorist attacks, the WTC PATH Terminal served some 67,000 daily boardings and was the gateway to Lower Manhattan for most commuters from west of the Hudson River. The attacks resulted in extensive damage to the PATH system including destruction of the WTC Terminal. This draft EIS considers three alternatives, specifically, a No Action Alternative, a terminal with a Liberty Plaza Connection, and a terminal without a Liberty Plaza Connection. The draft EIS also considers design options for components of the terminal, including ventilation structures, a Route 9A pedestrian bridge, and a river water cooling system. The No Action Alternative would maintain temporary PATH service between New Jersey and Lower Manhattan until elements of the WTC redevelopment plan precluded operations, the station would not safely accommodate passenger demand, or the major elements of the station exceeded their useful service life. A new terminal, with a Liberty Plaza connection, would result in the provision of a new four-level terminal on the WTC site. Access to five tracks and four 10-car platforms would be provided at the platform level. The mezzanine level, located just above the platform level, would house fire equipment, vertical circulation facilities, and up to 5,000 square feet of retail services. The concourse level would provide access to offices and retail space on the WTC site, the World Financial Center, trans-Hudson ferries, Battery Park City, Fulton Street Transit Center's Dey Street concourse, and New York City Transit's Cortlandt Street services and WTC (E) subway stations. The terminal building would be constructed within the eastern portion of the WTC site along Church Street. Cost of this alternative is estimated at $2.033 billion. If the terminal is provided without the Liberty Plaza connection, the terminal would not include a pedestrian concourse under Church Street between the WTC site and Liberty Plaza Park. Total project costs for this alternative would be approximately $81 million lower than the estimate for the terminal with the connection. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would re-establish and enhance transportation facilities and infrastructure that existed at the WTC complex prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and ensure the long-term accessibility and economic vitality of Lower Manhattan. The facility would support the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan, increase public transportation ridership, and ease commuting to Lower Manhattan. The project would create thousands of jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would impact historic structures and archaeological resources within and near the construction site. Noise levels during construction would exceed federal standards for residential uses, and noise and vibration generated by trains would also exceed federal standards during terminal operation. Tunneling beneath Route 9A could encounter contaminated materials, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metal toxins. 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.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040257, Final EIS--678 pages and maps, Appendices--755 pages, May 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Central Business Districts KW - Commercial Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Urban Structures KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=PERMANENT+WTC+PATH+TERMINAL+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 9 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874632; 10804-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 8 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874630; 10804-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 7 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874628; 10804-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 6 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874627; 10804-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 5 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874626; 10804-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 4 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874356; 10804-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 3 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874355; 10804-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 2 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874352; 10804-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 1 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905874347; 10804-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 14 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905873954; 10804-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 13 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905873338; 10804-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 12 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905873327; 10804-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 11 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905873319; 10804-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). [Part 10 of 14] T2 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 905873310; 10804-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36430104; 10806 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction or resurfacing of 10.7 miles of Fernan Lake Road in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. Fernan Lake Road extends between the city of Coeur d'Alene and Fernan Saddle, a geographic feature in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). Fernan Lake is the most heavily used road on the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District of the IPNF. The road has a much higher accident rate than similar roads statewide. East Side Highway District reports that the facility sufffers from the poorest conditions of all the roads it maintains. The road lacks stormwater treatment facilities to protect the quality of water in Fernan Lake and Creek. This draft EIS considers three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative G) would reconstruct the road from the intersection of Fernan Lake Road with Lakeview Drive and Fernan Court to mile post 5.0 where IPNF management of lands begins. The first segment would extend follow the existing alignment along the north shore of Fernan Lake, across Lulypad Bay in the northeast part of the lake, and end at the east end of the lake. The second segment would extend on a realigned rights-of-way northeastward, climbing the relatively steep upper valley of Fernan Creek, and ending the IPNF management line. From the IPNF line to the large parking lot at on Fernan Saddle, the project would involve rehabilitation of the existing road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the road would maintain a safe transportation link between Coeur d'Alene and IPNF at Fernan Saddle that would efficiently accommodate traffic volumes projected through 2026. Upgrading of stormwater facilities along the road would protect water quality in Fernan Creek and Lake. The project would raise the road elevation above the 100-year floodplain elevation and correct alignment and slope stability problems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of the first two segments of the roadway would involve modification of a facility eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction activities would temporarily affect wildlife and terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland habitat. Recreational enjoyment of the area would be degraded during construction, and the landscape would be altered somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040253, 261 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Idaho Panhandle National Forests KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36430104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-31 FREEWAY CONNECTION TO I-94, NAPIER AVENUE TO I-94, BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1981 FINAL EIS). AN - 36412401; 10804 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of US 31 as a freeway to connect Matthew Road to Interstate 94 (I-94) in Berrien County, Michigan is proposed. This final supplement to the 1981 final EIS addresses the northernmost four miles of the US 21 freeway approved in the 1981 document. The study area is located in the Benton Charter Township, east of Benton Harbor, and is roughly bounded by I-94 to the north and west, Napier Avenue to the south, and Blue Creek Road tot he east. The US 31 freeway project has been under development for over 30 years. The objective has been to provide a freeway connection from the I-80/I-90 toll road in Indiana to the US 31/I-196 connection at I-94. In addition to the No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management alternative, this final supplemental EIS considers three build alternatives. The preferred alternative (PA-2) would involve an I-94 connection that would differ from that recommended in the 1981 final EIS. This alternative would result in a US 31 connection to I-94 just south of the existing I-94/Business Loop 94 (BL-94) interchange. The BL-94 interchange would be reconstructed to serve as a full access interchange. Traffic on the US 31 freeway would also have a direct connection to BL-94 as well as I-94. Auxiliary lanes would be provided on I-94 between the US 31 interchange with I-94/BL-94 and the existing I-94/I-196/US 31 interchange. These lanes would allow through traffic on US 31 to remain in the auxiliary lane provided and not merge into I-94. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $80.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve US 31 system connectivity, enhance vehicular travel within the region, and improve access to I-94, I-96, and Business Loop 94. The new connector would reduce congestion problems forecast for the study area. In addition to improving level of service in the area, the project would enhance safety by preventing merging at the major interchange. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 442 acres of lane, including 441 acres of farmland and open space. Approximately 215 acres of prime agricultural soils would be lost. Fourteen residential units would be relocated and one parcel would be land locked. The project would displace 13.2 acres of wetlands. One archaeological site could be affected. Construction activities would encounter five hazardous waste sites. One road closure would be required. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 24 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0096D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040251, 298 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-78-02-FS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Michigan KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36412401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&rft.title=US-31+FREEWAY+CONNECTION+TO+I-94%2C+NAPIER+AVENUE+TO+I-94%2C+BERRIEN+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+1981+FINAL+EIS%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36369689; 10806-040253_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction or resurfacing of 10.7 miles of Fernan Lake Road in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. Fernan Lake Road extends between the city of Coeur d'Alene and Fernan Saddle, a geographic feature in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). Fernan Lake is the most heavily used road on the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District of the IPNF. The road has a much higher accident rate than similar roads statewide. East Side Highway District reports that the facility sufffers from the poorest conditions of all the roads it maintains. The road lacks stormwater treatment facilities to protect the quality of water in Fernan Lake and Creek. This draft EIS considers three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative G) would reconstruct the road from the intersection of Fernan Lake Road with Lakeview Drive and Fernan Court to mile post 5.0 where IPNF management of lands begins. The first segment would extend follow the existing alignment along the north shore of Fernan Lake, across Lulypad Bay in the northeast part of the lake, and end at the east end of the lake. The second segment would extend on a realigned rights-of-way northeastward, climbing the relatively steep upper valley of Fernan Creek, and ending the IPNF management line. From the IPNF line to the large parking lot at on Fernan Saddle, the project would involve rehabilitation of the existing road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the road would maintain a safe transportation link between Coeur d'Alene and IPNF at Fernan Saddle that would efficiently accommodate traffic volumes projected through 2026. Upgrading of stormwater facilities along the road would protect water quality in Fernan Creek and Lake. The project would raise the road elevation above the 100-year floodplain elevation and correct alignment and slope stability problems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of the first two segments of the roadway would involve modification of a facility eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction activities would temporarily affect wildlife and terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland habitat. Recreational enjoyment of the area would be degraded during construction, and the landscape would be altered somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040253, 261 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Idaho Panhandle National Forests KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT LNG PROJECT, FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P., QUINTANA ISLAND, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS (DOCKET NO. CP03-75-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FREEPORT LNG PROJECT, FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P., QUINTANA ISLAND, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS (DOCKET NO. CP03-75-000). AN - 36367339; 10807-040254_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facility on Quintana Island southeast of the city of Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas are proposed. Freeport LNG Development, L.P. proposes to construct and operate a new LNG import terminal, including an LNG tanker docking and unloading service facilities. In addition Freeport LNG would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities in Brazoira County. More specifically, Freeport LNG would construct an LNG ship maneuvering area; a protected single berth unloading dock, equipped with three liquid unloading arms and one vapor return arm and mooring and breasting dolphins; a reconfigured storm protection levee and a permanent access road; two 26-inch-diameter double-walled stainless steel vacuum insulated LNG transfer lines and one 16-inch-diameter vapor return line; ancillary service pipelines; two double-walled LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal capacity of just over 1.0 million barrels (3.5 billion cubic feet of gas equivalent); six 3,240-gallon-per-minute (gpm) in-tank pumps; seven 2,315-gpm, high-pressure booster pumps; three boil-off gas compressors and a boil-off gas condensing system; six high-pressure LNG vaporizers using a primary closed-circuit water /glycol solution heated with 12 water/glycol boilers during cold weather and a set of intermediate heat exchangers using a secondary circulating water system heated by an air tower during warm weather, and circulation pumps for both systems; two natural gas superheaters and two fuel gas heaters; and a fire response system, a natural gas flare system, a construction dock, utilities, buildings, access roadways, and service facilities. The associated pipeline system in Brazoria County would consist of 9.6 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from the LNG terminal to the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station as well as pig-launcher, pig-receiver, and metering facilities. In addition to Freeport LNG's proposal, this final EIS considers a No-Action Alternative and a postponed action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port terminal would provide facilities necessary to deliver imported LNG to shippers, including Dow Chemical Company, at the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station by 2007. The proposed facilities would re-vaporize up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and transport the product to the Texas intrastate market. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 296 acres of land and water, including 188.2 acres to be developed for the LNG terminal and 107.8 acres to be developed for the pipeline system. Approximately 119.7 acres at the LNG terminal would be displaced by permanent facilities, the remainder being affected only by temporary construction areas. Following construction of the pipeline, approximately 41.4 acres, including 3.8 acres of grassland/pasture at the Stratton Ridge Meter Station, would be retained as permanent rights-of-way. Approximately 80.9 acres of wetlands would be affected, including 42.6 acres that would be permanently displaced. Approximately 201 acres of vegetation would be disturbed, including 103.3 acres that would be permanently displaced. The terminal facility would lie in an area affected by subsidence; measures would be taken to address this potential problem. Shoreline erosion problems in the area could be exacerbated by construction and operation of the terminal. Hydric soils present throughout the site and along the pipeline route would be replaced by upland soils. The pipeline would traverse four perennial waterbodies and two intermittent waterbodies. One residence would be relocated or demolished prior to the construction of the marine berth on Quintana Island, and 13 residences would lie within 50 feet of the construction work areas for the pipeline. A county boat ramp and the Xeriscape Park on the island would also be relocated. The LNG storage tanks and other LNG terminal facilities would impinge visually on the surrounding area. Thermal impacts of terminal operation could be significant. Cultural resource surveys have not yet been undertaken. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0125D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040254, 698 pages, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0164F KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Erosion Control KW - Harbor Structures KW - Islands KW - Natural Gas KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Quintana Island KW - Texas KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%29.&rft.title=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - High accuracy nationwide differential global positioning system AN - 39803199; 3849327 AU - Arnold, J Y1 - 2004/05/20/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 May 20 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39803199?accountid=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=&rft.atitle=High+accuracy+nationwide+differential+global+positioning+system&rft.au=Arnold%2C+J&rft.aulast=Arnold&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: American Association of Geographers, 1710 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20009-3198, USA; phone: 202-234-1450; fax: 202-234-2744; URL: www.aag.org N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 9A RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, LOWER MANHATTAN REDEVELOPMENT, WEST THAMES STREET TO CHAMBERS STREET, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1994). AN - 36432788; 10794 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a five-mile section of Route 9A between Chambers and West Thames streets in Lower Manhattan is proposed. The area is being considered for reconstruction as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that destroyed the World Trade Center (WTC) and severely damaged or destroyed nearby structures and transportation infrastructure including portions of Route 9A. The proposed project, which is reviewed in the supplement to the draft of 1994 on the reconstruction of Route 9A, is one of several federally funded projects proposed in response to the devastation of September 11. At the time of the September 11 attacks, the reconstruction of Route 9A, pursuant to the 1994 final EIS, was nearly complete. The attacks destroyed the section of the roadway in the vicinity of the WTC, between Liberty and Vesey streets. Located near the Hudson River between Battery Place and 59th Street, Route 9A (also known as West Street) is a six- to eight-lane principal urban arterial with a continuous bikeway and walkway. Route 9A is a multi-modal facility used by cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The section of Route 9A that is the subject of the proposed project lies at the southern end of the corridor. In addition to the subject of this draft supplemental EIS, the New York State Department of Transportation is proposing the Promenade South Project south of West Thames Street. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. The No Action Alternative would provide a post-September 11 six-lane interim roadway, with minor upgrading. The Short Bypass Alternative would provide a four-lane depressed/covered roadway for through traffic, with four surface lanes for local traffic. The At-Grade Alternative would provide an eight-lane facility, as proposed in the 1994 final EIS, though the facility would realigned for exposed WTC site slurry walls. Costs of the No Action, Short Bypass Alternative, and At-Grade Alternative are estimated at $135 million, $860 million, and $175 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: As a transportation cornerstone in the September 11 recovery effort, the project would provide a safe and efficient transportation facility that would meet the goals and objectives established for Route 9A prior to the attacks. Under any of the build alternatives, the structural deterioration, safety deficiencies, and inadequate capacity of Route 9A would be corrected. The transportation and visual improvements would improve neighborhood character. Public open space in the area would increase, including bikeways and walkways. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the project could result in displacement of residences and businesses, damage or removal of historic sites, alter the character of the adjacent neighborhoods, generate noise and vibrations that could affect area inhabitants and buildings, require relocation of utilities, and result in construction-related air pollutant emissions in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Route 9A reconstruction project from Battery Place to 59th Street, see 93-0202D Volume 17, Number 3 and 94-0266F, Volume 18 Number 3. For the abstract of a related draft supplement, see 93-0356DS, Volume 17, Number 5. JF - EPA number: 040242, Draft Supplemental EIS--376 pages and maps, Appendix A (Design/Engineering Considerations)--35 pages, Appendix B (Engineering Drawings)--129 pages (oversize), Appendix C (Cultural Resources--112 pages and maps, Appendix D (Visual Resource Assessment)--20 pages and maps, Appendix E (Part I: Transportation)--78 pages and maps, Appendix E (Part I: Transportation)--932 pages and maps, Appendix F (Air Quality)--378 pages, Appendix G (Noise)--75 pages and maps, Appendix H (Contaminated Materials)-344 pages and maps, Appendix I (Public Outreach)--4 pages, May 20, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-02-S KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+9A+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+LOWER+MANHATTAN+REDEVELOPMENT%2C+WEST+THAMES+STREET+TO+CHAMBERS+STREET%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1994%29.&rft.title=ROUTE+9A+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+LOWER+MANHATTAN+REDEVELOPMENT%2C+WEST+THAMES+STREET+TO+CHAMBERS+STREET%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 9A RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, LOWER MANHATTAN REDEVELOPMENT, WEST THAMES STREET TO CHAMBERS STREET, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1994). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROUTE 9A RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, LOWER MANHATTAN REDEVELOPMENT, WEST THAMES STREET TO CHAMBERS STREET, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 1994). AN - 36368323; 10794-040242_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a five-mile section of Route 9A between Chambers and West Thames streets in Lower Manhattan is proposed. The area is being considered for reconstruction as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that destroyed the World Trade Center (WTC) and severely damaged or destroyed nearby structures and transportation infrastructure including portions of Route 9A. The proposed project, which is reviewed in the supplement to the draft of 1994 on the reconstruction of Route 9A, is one of several federally funded projects proposed in response to the devastation of September 11. At the time of the September 11 attacks, the reconstruction of Route 9A, pursuant to the 1994 final EIS, was nearly complete. The attacks destroyed the section of the roadway in the vicinity of the WTC, between Liberty and Vesey streets. Located near the Hudson River between Battery Place and 59th Street, Route 9A (also known as West Street) is a six- to eight-lane principal urban arterial with a continuous bikeway and walkway. Route 9A is a multi-modal facility used by cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The section of Route 9A that is the subject of the proposed project lies at the southern end of the corridor. In addition to the subject of this draft supplemental EIS, the New York State Department of Transportation is proposing the Promenade South Project south of West Thames Street. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. The No Action Alternative would provide a post-September 11 six-lane interim roadway, with minor upgrading. The Short Bypass Alternative would provide a four-lane depressed/covered roadway for through traffic, with four surface lanes for local traffic. The At-Grade Alternative would provide an eight-lane facility, as proposed in the 1994 final EIS, though the facility would realigned for exposed WTC site slurry walls. Costs of the No Action, Short Bypass Alternative, and At-Grade Alternative are estimated at $135 million, $860 million, and $175 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: As a transportation cornerstone in the September 11 recovery effort, the project would provide a safe and efficient transportation facility that would meet the goals and objectives established for Route 9A prior to the attacks. Under any of the build alternatives, the structural deterioration, safety deficiencies, and inadequate capacity of Route 9A would be corrected. The transportation and visual improvements would improve neighborhood character. Public open space in the area would increase, including bikeways and walkways. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the project could result in displacement of residences and businesses, damage or removal of historic sites, alter the character of the adjacent neighborhoods, generate noise and vibrations that could affect area inhabitants and buildings, require relocation of utilities, and result in construction-related air pollutant emissions in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Route 9A reconstruction project from Battery Place to 59th Street, see 93-0202D Volume 17, Number 3 and 94-0266F, Volume 18 Number 3. For the abstract of a related draft supplement, see 93-0356DS, Volume 17, Number 5. JF - EPA number: 040242, Draft Supplemental EIS--376 pages and maps, Appendix A (Design/Engineering Considerations)--35 pages, Appendix B (Engineering Drawings)--129 pages (oversize), Appendix C (Cultural Resources--112 pages and maps, Appendix D (Visual Resource Assessment)--20 pages and maps, Appendix E (Part I: Transportation)--78 pages and maps, Appendix E (Part I: Transportation)--932 pages and maps, Appendix F (Air Quality)--378 pages, Appendix G (Noise)--75 pages and maps, Appendix H (Contaminated Materials)-344 pages and maps, Appendix I (Public Outreach)--4 pages, May 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-02-S KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+9A+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+LOWER+MANHATTAN+REDEVELOPMENT%2C+WEST+THAMES+STREET+TO+CHAMBERS+STREET%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1994%29.&rft.title=ROUTE+9A+RECONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+LOWER+MANHATTAN+REDEVELOPMENT%2C+WEST+THAMES+STREET+TO+CHAMBERS+STREET%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. AN - 36363591; 10790-040238_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 100 miles four-lane, divided controlled access freeway on new alignment within the I-69 corridor from US 82 near El Dorado to US 65 near McGehee in Arkansas is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 13, which extends approximately 110 miles and encompasses portions of Columbia, Ouachita, Union, Calhoun, Bradley, Ashley, Drew, Chicot, and Desha counties. The corridor study involved the development of four full-length corridors, two miles in with within the project area. A multi-corridor combination with the preferred corridor was identified to provide the best opportunity to develop highway alignments to avoid or minimize impacts, and additional alignments were developed to enhance transportation services and economic vitality in the area. Five alignment alternatives were developed within the preferred corridor. The alignments are each divided into five sections. A No Action Alternative is also considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the alignment selected, total costs of the project range from $754.0 million to $765.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 16 residences, 270 to 350 acres of wetlands, up to 34 acres of habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker, 769 to 856 acres of 100-year floodplain, 2,104 to 2,517 acres of prime farmland, and 145 to 299 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The project would affect two to four known archaeological sites and would traverse 634 to 769 acres of land with a high probability of containing unknown sites. Two alignments would affect one historic site. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 15 to 27 sensitive receptor sites. One alignment would travel an active gas oil/natural gas well site. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 040238, 317 pages and maps, May 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites 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/36363591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. AN - 16358998; 10790 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 100 miles four-lane, divided controlled access freeway on new alignment within the I-69 corridor from US 82 near El Dorado to US 65 near McGehee in Arkansas is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 13, which extends approximately 110 miles and encompasses portions of Columbia, Ouachita, Union, Calhoun, Bradley, Ashley, Drew, Chicot, and Desha counties. The corridor study involved the development of four full-length corridors, two miles in with within the project area. A multi-corridor combination with the preferred corridor was identified to provide the best opportunity to develop highway alignments to avoid or minimize impacts, and additional alignments were developed to enhance transportation services and economic vitality in the area. Five alignment alternatives were developed within the preferred corridor. The alignments are each divided into five sections. A No Action Alternative is also considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the alignment selected, total costs of the project range from $754.0 million to $765.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 16 residences, 270 to 350 acres of wetlands, up to 34 acres of habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker, 769 to 856 acres of 100-year floodplain, 2,104 to 2,517 acres of prime farmland, and 145 to 299 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The project would affect two to four known archaeological sites and would traverse 634 to 769 acres of land with a high probability of containing unknown sites. Two alignments would affect one historic site. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 15 to 27 sensitive receptor sites. One alignment would travel an active gas oil/natural gas well site. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 040238, 317 pages and maps, May 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites 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/16358998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). AN - 36362069; 10780-040228_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypaasing existing US 412 north of Springdale in Benton and Washington counties, Arkansas is proposed. Major communities in the study area include Springdale, Tontitown, Elm Springs, Bethel Heights, Lowell, Sonora, Rogers, Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Cave Springs. US 412 is part of a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor running east and west across northern Arkansas. The highway, to be known as the Springdale Northern Bypass, would extend 19.8 to 20.6 miles, beginning at the interchange with existing US 412 west of Tontitown where the highway presently transitions from four to five lanes and extending to an interchange on existing US 412 between the Springdale eastern city limits and Beaver Lake. Both toll and non-toll funding alternatives are under consideration for each alignment. This supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considers two alignments that were not considered in the draft EIS as well as the previously considered alignments, bringing the total number of alignment alternatives to four. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would function as a link in the U.S. 412 High Priority Corridor as well as a link in the state and regional transportation system. Separation of through and local traffic on U.S. 412 would improve safety, circulation patterns, connectivity, intermodal access, and reduce traffic in the city of Springdale. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential owners and tenants as well as several businesses and, possibly, a small number of non-profit organizations. Residences owned by minorities, low-income households, and the elderly would be displaced. The project would also displace farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of state importance, woodland. The project would traverse streams and springs and encroach on floodplain, including floodway area and special flood hazard areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040228, 401 pages and maps, May 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-90 TWO-WAY TRANSIT AND HOV OPERATIONS, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-90 TWO-WAY TRANSIT AND HOV OPERATIONS, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352657; 10781-040229_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a two-way transit and high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) project in King County, Washington is proposed. The system would operate within the Interstate 90 (I-90) corridor between Seattle and Bellevue. Peak-hour traffic crossing Mercer Island, which includes numerous buses and HOVs, including carpools and vanpools, is currently highly congested. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative R-1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative R-2B Modified would involve provision of a two-way center roadway, converting the center roadway to two-way traffic for transit and carpool use. Alternative R-5 Restripe would provide for transit-only shoulders on the outer roadway to be used in peak traffic periods, eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. Alternative R-5 Modified would also provide transit-only shoulders on the outer roadway and would operate similarly to Alternative R-5 Restripe. In addition to the R-5 Restripe provisions though, portions of the outer roadway would be widened to allow for wider inside shoulder for westbound buses. Alternative R-8A, the preferred alternative, would add HOV lanes on the outer roadways, narrowing outer roadway lanes and shoulders to add a transit and carpool lane in each direction; the current center roadway would be maintained for reversible operation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new system would improve faster, more reliable HOV access for travelers and mass transportation services in the region. Project partners would be assisted in achieving their goal of encouraging and improving HOV use in the corridor, supporting state, regional, and local planning requirements. The levels of air pollutants and noise emissions along the corridor would decrease significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the construction of the modifications to I-90 under the R-5 Restripe Alternative, there would be transit delays due to lane closures and accidents, and full or partial closure of the shared-use pathway for railing replacement. All action alternatives would result in traffic disruption to some extent during construction. Night construction would could require a waiver of noise standards. All action alternatives would increase the extent of impervious surface in the corridor, increasing runoff and the transport of pollutants to receiving surface waters. The facilities would be proximate to parklands in several stretches along the freeway. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0346D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040229, Final EIS--707 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--562 pages, May 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-90+TWO-WAY+TRANSIT+AND+HOV+OPERATIONS%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=I-90+TWO-WAY+TRANSIT+AND+HOV+OPERATIONS%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). AN - 16361406; 10780 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypaasing existing US 412 north of Springdale in Benton and Washington counties, Arkansas is proposed. Major communities in the study area include Springdale, Tontitown, Elm Springs, Bethel Heights, Lowell, Sonora, Rogers, Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Cave Springs. US 412 is part of a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor running east and west across northern Arkansas. The highway, to be known as the Springdale Northern Bypass, would extend 19.8 to 20.6 miles, beginning at the interchange with existing US 412 west of Tontitown where the highway presently transitions from four to five lanes and extending to an interchange on existing US 412 between the Springdale eastern city limits and Beaver Lake. Both toll and non-toll funding alternatives are under consideration for each alignment. This supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considers two alignments that were not considered in the draft EIS as well as the previously considered alignments, bringing the total number of alignment alternatives to four. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would function as a link in the U.S. 412 High Priority Corridor as well as a link in the state and regional transportation system. Separation of through and local traffic on U.S. 412 would improve safety, circulation patterns, connectivity, intermodal access, and reduce traffic in the city of Springdale. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential owners and tenants as well as several businesses and, possibly, a small number of non-profit organizations. Residences owned by minorities, low-income households, and the elderly would be displaced. The project would also displace farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of state importance, woodland. The project would traverse streams and springs and encroach on floodplain, including floodway area and special flood hazard areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040228, 401 pages and maps, May 13, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK. AN - 36363054; 10777-040225_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rehabilitated, reconfigured, and enhanced Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) in Lower Manhattan, New York City, New York are proposed to improve access to, from, and within lower Manhattan and the area south of Chambers Street in Manhattan. The existing facility was inadequate to the transportation needs of the public even before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City. The damaged caused by the attacks exacerbated this situation extremely. The proposed facility would be multi-level, street-level, and subsurface station complex, extending from Church Street in the west to William Street in the east, that would serve 12 New York City Transit subway lines. The entry facility to the FSTC would be located on Broadway between Fulton and John streets, with a subsurface pedestrian passageway extending on Dey Street west to Church Street. The FSTC would include improvements to the following four existing connected subway stations that comprise the existing Fulton Street-Broadway Nassau Subway Station Complex: Fulton Street 4/5, Broadway-Nassau A /C, Fulton Street 2/3, and Fulton Street J/M/Z. In addition tot he four existing connected subway stations, the proposed action would include improvements to the R/W Cortland Street Station and the E World Trade Center (WTC) Station. In aggregate, the proposed action would involve six principle elements: 1) a prominent entry facility at street-level, with subsurface-level passenger concourse, centrally located on Broadway between Fulton and John streets that would integrate horizontal connectivity between the a/C and 4/5 services with vertical connectivity between the street and different levels and provide improved street-level access and visibility; 2) rehabilitation of the 4/5 line Fulton Street Station and the 2/3 line Fulton Street Station; 3) a subsurface pedestrian passageway (the Dey Street Passageway) beneath Dey Street between Broadway and Church Street connecting the entry facility to the WTC site with an access building on the south side of Dey Street at Broadway; 4) improvements to the mezzanines and platform access at the A/C line Fulton Street Station and the J/M/Z line Fulton Street Station; 5) a pedestrian and passenger connection between the R/W and E service; and improved street access to the subway, including wider and more direct stairways, access for disabled customers, and new street entrances. Two build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would replace critical portions of the Lower Manhattan transportation system destroyed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the WTC. The new facility would help restore the area's sustainability as a central business district, emerging residential area, and key tourist destination. Connectivity of the existing facility with the WTC site and memorial and other transportation service routes would be improved. Operational problems within the existing facility would be resolved, and street-level direction-finding and access to the subway system would be enhanced. Approximately 1,300 construction jobs would be provided over a four-year period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the complex would result in the displacement of five buildings, requiring the relocation of 25 restaurants and 75 businesses as well as a number or residences. A number of historic structures would be affected, but none would be demolished. Construction-related noise would exceed federal standards at some locations, and construction-related pollutant emissions would also violate federal standards in some locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040225, Draft EIS--891 pages, Appendices--909 pages, May 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Urban Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/36363054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FULTON+STREET+TRANSIT+CENTER%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FULTON+STREET+TRANSIT+CENTER%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK. AN - 16358906; 10777 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rehabilitated, reconfigured, and enhanced Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) in Lower Manhattan, New York City, New York are proposed to improve access to, from, and within lower Manhattan and the area south of Chambers Street in Manhattan. The existing facility was inadequate to the transportation needs of the public even before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City. The damaged caused by the attacks exacerbated this situation extremely. The proposed facility would be multi-level, street-level, and subsurface station complex, extending from Church Street in the west to William Street in the east, that would serve 12 New York City Transit subway lines. The entry facility to the FSTC would be located on Broadway between Fulton and John streets, with a subsurface pedestrian passageway extending on Dey Street west to Church Street. The FSTC would include improvements to the following four existing connected subway stations that comprise the existing Fulton Street-Broadway Nassau Subway Station Complex: Fulton Street 4/5, Broadway-Nassau A /C, Fulton Street 2/3, and Fulton Street J/M/Z. In addition tot he four existing connected subway stations, the proposed action would include improvements to the R/W Cortland Street Station and the E World Trade Center (WTC) Station. In aggregate, the proposed action would involve six principle elements: 1) a prominent entry facility at street-level, with subsurface-level passenger concourse, centrally located on Broadway between Fulton and John streets that would integrate horizontal connectivity between the a/C and 4/5 services with vertical connectivity between the street and different levels and provide improved street-level access and visibility; 2) rehabilitation of the 4/5 line Fulton Street Station and the 2/3 line Fulton Street Station; 3) a subsurface pedestrian passageway (the Dey Street Passageway) beneath Dey Street between Broadway and Church Street connecting the entry facility to the WTC site with an access building on the south side of Dey Street at Broadway; 4) improvements to the mezzanines and platform access at the A/C line Fulton Street Station and the J/M/Z line Fulton Street Station; 5) a pedestrian and passenger connection between the R/W and E service; and improved street access to the subway, including wider and more direct stairways, access for disabled customers, and new street entrances. Two build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would replace critical portions of the Lower Manhattan transportation system destroyed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the WTC. The new facility would help restore the area's sustainability as a central business district, emerging residential area, and key tourist destination. Connectivity of the existing facility with the WTC site and memorial and other transportation service routes would be improved. Operational problems within the existing facility would be resolved, and street-level direction-finding and access to the subway system would be enhanced. Approximately 1,300 construction jobs would be provided over a four-year period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the complex would result in the displacement of five buildings, requiring the relocation of 25 restaurants and 75 businesses as well as a number or residences. A number of historic structures would be affected, but none would be demolished. Construction-related noise would exceed federal standards at some locations, and construction-related pollutant emissions would also violate federal standards in some locations. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040225, Draft EIS--891 pages, Appendices--909 pages, May 7, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - Urban Structures KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/16358906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FULTON+STREET+TRANSIT+CENTER%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FULTON+STREET+TRANSIT+CENTER%2C+NEW+YORK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 36364897; 10775-040223_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 40-mile segment of Interstate 69 (I-69) from the I-55/State Route (SR) 304 interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington, Tennessee, DeSoto and Marshall counties, Mississippi and Shelby and Fayette counties, Tennessee is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 9. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, a systems approach alternative, and the proposed action, are considered in this EIS. Five alignment alternatives for I-69 are also considered. Alternative A would begin at the new I-55/MS 304 interchange and follow I-55, I-240, and I-40/240 through Memphis to SR 300. The existing interstate cross-sections through this area vary from six to eight lanes. At the SR/US 51 interchange, I-69 would follow one of two new location alternatives to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 739 to 1,552 acres of rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 21 to 60 family residences, one to six businesses, 95 to 497 acres of farmland, and six to 69 acres of wetlands. The alignment would traverse 20 to 46 streams and forested wildlife habitat. From nine to 20 recorded archaeological sites would be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040223, 321 pages and maps, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 16360940; 10775 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 40-mile segment of Interstate 69 (I-69) from the I-55/State Route (SR) 304 interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington, Tennessee, DeSoto and Marshall counties, Mississippi and Shelby and Fayette counties, Tennessee is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 9. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, a systems approach alternative, and the proposed action, are considered in this EIS. Five alignment alternatives for I-69 are also considered. Alternative A would begin at the new I-55/MS 304 interchange and follow I-55, I-240, and I-40/240 through Memphis to SR 300. The existing interstate cross-sections through this area vary from six to eight lanes. At the SR/US 51 interchange, I-69 would follow one of two new location alternatives to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 739 to 1,552 acres of rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 21 to 60 family residences, one to six businesses, 95 to 497 acres of farmland, and six to 69 acres of wetlands. The alignment would traverse 20 to 46 streams and forested wildlife habitat. From nine to 20 recorded archaeological sites would be disturbed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040223, 321 pages and maps, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16360940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36365112; 10770-040218_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a light rail transit (LRT) system within the Capitol Expressway corridor of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California are proposed. Planning for an LRT along the Capitol Expressway has been ongoing since the 1990s. The study area contains approximately 20 percent of the county population, and the overall county population is expected to increase by 16 percent by 2020; a population increase of 15 percent is expected in the study area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would provide an LRT system to be constructed in two phases. The Minimum Operating System (MOS or Phase I) would extend from the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol LRT corridor to the Eastridge Transit Center and would include three stations, one new and one expanded park-and-ride lot, a kiss-and-ride lot, and a vehicle storage facility at one potential location. The MOS would include an aerial structure in the median of the Capitol Expressway between Capitol Avenue and Story road, and a tunnel below Tully Road into the Eastridge Transit Center. No additional vehicles would be required to serve the MOS. Phase 2 would extend the system to State Route (SR) 87 to connect to the Guadalupe line as soon as additional funding could be found. Phase 2 would include six stations, a potential future station at Silver Creek Road, one relocation and one existing park-and-ride lot, and a vehicle storage facility at one of two locations. Phase 2 would include a tunnel south of the Eastridge Transit Center and under Quinby Road, and an aerial structure at Silver Creek Road. Four additional vehicles would be required to serve the full alignment to SR 87. The financial plan for the project indicates that additional revenue would be needed for construction and operation in the timeframe described in this document. The Federal Transit Administration is approving the circulation of this EIS with a preliminary financial plan in recognition of the project's inclusion in the "2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area" financially constrained plan. Capital costs of phases 1 and 2 are estimated at $259 million and $447 million respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs are $340.4 million and $345.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT alternative would improve mobility, increase public transit ridership, serve a high commute corridor, promote livable neighborhoods, and engage community support. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected transit services along some of the primary travel corridors in the county. Regional air quality would improve due to a decline in automobile use. The estimated daily ridership for the LR is 9,790 riders in 2010 and 11,075 riders in 2025. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the MOS would require 44 property acquisitions, including nine full acquisitions and 35 partial acquisitions. Phase 2 would require a total of 112 acquisitions, including one full acquisition and 111 partial acquisitions. Affordable housing would be displaced. The project would displace habitat, including habitat for federally protected species and wetland habitat. Construction activities would disturb habitat for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon in Coyote Creek and nesting habitat for raptors, special-status bats, and migratory birds. One archaeological resource site would be impacted. The LRT would traverse an area affected by seismic activity and expansive soils. Discharges from the system could result in violation of water quality standards, and vibration and noise levels along portions of the corridor would exceed federal standards. The LRT would be a source of substantial glare and otherwise mar visual quality along the corridor. Five major overhead electrical towers would be relocated between Story Road and the Eastridge Transit Center. Traffic congestion at intersections and grade crossings near proposed stations would worsen LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040218, Draft EIS--731 pages and maps, Appendices, 799 pages and maps, May 4, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/36365112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPITOL+EXPRESSWAY+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CAPITOL+EXPRESSWAY+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPITOL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16342786; 10770 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a light rail transit (LRT) system within the Capitol Expressway corridor of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California are proposed. Planning for an LRT along the Capitol Expressway has been ongoing since the 1990s. The study area contains approximately 20 percent of the county population, and the overall county population is expected to increase by 16 percent by 2020; a population increase of 15 percent is expected in the study area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would provide an LRT system to be constructed in two phases. The Minimum Operating System (MOS or Phase I) would extend from the Alum Rock Station on the Capitol LRT corridor to the Eastridge Transit Center and would include three stations, one new and one expanded park-and-ride lot, a kiss-and-ride lot, and a vehicle storage facility at one potential location. The MOS would include an aerial structure in the median of the Capitol Expressway between Capitol Avenue and Story road, and a tunnel below Tully Road into the Eastridge Transit Center. No additional vehicles would be required to serve the MOS. Phase 2 would extend the system to State Route (SR) 87 to connect to the Guadalupe line as soon as additional funding could be found. Phase 2 would include six stations, a potential future station at Silver Creek Road, one relocation and one existing park-and-ride lot, and a vehicle storage facility at one of two locations. Phase 2 would include a tunnel south of the Eastridge Transit Center and under Quinby Road, and an aerial structure at Silver Creek Road. Four additional vehicles would be required to serve the full alignment to SR 87. The financial plan for the project indicates that additional revenue would be needed for construction and operation in the timeframe described in this document. The Federal Transit Administration is approving the circulation of this EIS with a preliminary financial plan in recognition of the project's inclusion in the "2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area" financially constrained plan. Capital costs of phases 1 and 2 are estimated at $259 million and $447 million respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs are $340.4 million and $345.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT alternative would improve mobility, increase public transit ridership, serve a high commute corridor, promote livable neighborhoods, and engage community support. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected transit services along some of the primary travel corridors in the county. Regional air quality would improve due to a decline in automobile use. The estimated daily ridership for the LR is 9,790 riders in 2010 and 11,075 riders in 2025. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the MOS would require 44 property acquisitions, including nine full acquisitions and 35 partial acquisitions. Phase 2 would require a total of 112 acquisitions, including one full acquisition and 111 partial acquisitions. Affordable housing would be displaced. The project would displace habitat, including habitat for federally protected species and wetland habitat. Construction activities would disturb habitat for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon in Coyote Creek and nesting habitat for raptors, special-status bats, and migratory birds. One archaeological resource site would be impacted. The LRT would traverse an area affected by seismic activity and expansive soils. Discharges from the system could result in violation of water quality standards, and vibration and noise levels along portions of the corridor would exceed federal standards. The LRT would be a source of substantial glare and otherwise mar visual quality along the corridor. Five major overhead electrical towers would be relocated between Story Road and the Eastridge Transit Center. Traffic congestion at intersections and grade crossings near proposed stations would worsen LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040218, Draft EIS--731 pages and maps, Appendices, 799 pages and maps, May 4, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/16342786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPITOL+EXPRESSWAY+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CAPITOL+EXPRESSWAY+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Urban 3D GIS from LiDAR and digital aerial images AN - 51681719; 2005-062747 AB - This paper presents a method, which integrates image knowledge and Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) point cloud data for urban digital terrain model (DTM) and digital building model (DBM) generation. The DBM is an Object-Oriented data structure, in which each building is considered as a building object, i.e., an entity of the building class. The attributes of each building include roof types, polygons of the roof surfaces, height, parameters describing the roof surfaces, and the LiDAR point array within the roof surfaces. Each polygon represents a roof surface of building. This type of data structure is flexible for adding other building attributes in future, such as texture information and wall information. Using image knowledge extracted, we developed a new method of interpolating LiDAR raw data into grid digital surface model (DSM) with considering the steep discontinuities of buildings. In this interpolation method, the LiDAR data points, which are located in the polygon of roof surfaces, first are determined, and then interpolation via planar equation is employed for grid DSM generation. The basic steps of our research are: (1) edge detection by digital image processing algorithms; (2) complete extraction of the building roof edges by digital image processing and human-computer interactive operation; (3) establishment of DBM; (4) generation of DTM by removing surface objects. Finally, we implement the above functions by MS VC++ programming. The outcome of urban 3D DSM, DTM and DBM is exported into urban database for urban 3D GIS. JF - Computers & Geosciences AU - Zhou, Guoqing AU - Song, C AU - Simmers, J AU - Cheng, P A2 - Li, Zhilin A2 - Gold, Christopher Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 345 EP - 353 PB - Pergamon, New York-Oxford-Toronto VL - 30 IS - 4 SN - 0098-3004, 0098-3004 KW - geographic information systems KW - lidar methods KW - laser methods KW - three-dimensional models KW - radar methods KW - interpolation KW - information systems KW - algorithms KW - digital terrain models KW - remote sensing KW - airborne methods KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51681719?accountid=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=Computers+%26+Geosciences&rft.atitle=Urban+3D+GIS+from+LiDAR+and+digital+aerial+images&rft.au=Zhou%2C+Guoqing%3BSong%2C+C%3BSimmers%2C+J%3BCheng%2C+P&rft.aulast=Zhou&rft.aufirst=Guoqing&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=345&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Computers+%26+Geosciences&rft.issn=00983004&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.cageo.2003.08.012 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=5840&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e5198452fad934c6346f38b57511c8e0 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 23 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GGEOD5 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; algorithms; digital terrain models; geographic information systems; information systems; interpolation; laser methods; lidar methods; radar methods; remote sensing; three-dimensional models DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2003.08.012 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Boston's massive jacked tunnels set new benchmark AN - 50293949; 2005-028244 JF - Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering AU - Powderham, Alan AU - Howe, Chris AU - Caserta, Anthony AU - Allenby, Douglas AU - Ropkins, John Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 70 EP - 78 PB - Institution of Civil Engineers by Thomas Telford Services, London VL - 157 IS - 2 SN - 0965-089X, 0965-089X KW - United States KW - civil engineering KW - soil mechanics KW - Suffolk County Massachusetts KW - engineering properties KW - cost KW - Boston Massachusetts KW - cold weather construction KW - urban planning KW - railroads KW - Massachusetts KW - tunnels KW - frozen ground KW - construction KW - roads KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50293949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+Institution+of+Civil+Engineers.+Civil+Engineering&rft.atitle=Boston%27s+massive+jacked+tunnels+set+new+benchmark&rft.au=Powderham%2C+Alan%3BHowe%2C+Chris%3BCaserta%2C+Anthony%3BAllenby%2C+Douglas%3BRopkins%2C+John&rft.aulast=Powderham&rft.aufirst=Alan&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=157&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=70&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+Institution+of+Civil+Engineers.+Civil+Engineering&rft.issn=0965089X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - PCIEAT N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Boston Massachusetts; civil engineering; cold weather construction; construction; cost; engineering properties; frozen ground; Massachusetts; railroads; roads; soil mechanics; Suffolk County Massachusetts; tunnels; United States; urban planning ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Gigantic seismogenic landslides of Summer Lake basin, south-central Oregon AN - 17398075; 6514643 AB - Subsidence of Summer Lake basin, situated in the northwestern Basin and Range province in south-central Oregon, has exposed a kilometer-thick Neogene sequence of dense volcanic flow rocks overlying very weak tuffaceous sedimentary rocks in the bounding Winter Ridge-Slide Mountain escarpment. Subsidence occurs along the active, 40-km-long, Winter Ridge-Slide Mountain fault, which is capable of producing M sub(w) 7 earthquakes with near-field, maximum horizontal acceleration approaching 1g. Gigantic landslides cubic kilometers in volume scallop the southwestern part of the escarpment, and the deposits run out several kilometers, characteristic of rock avalanches. Geotechnical rock-mass characterization and slope- stability analyses confirm observations that these landslides were initiated within the weak tuffaceous sedimentary rocks along shallow, east-dipping, planar failure surfaces, are insensitive to groundwater fluctuations, and are stable under static conditions. Pseudostatic analyses reveal that strong shaking is required to trigger landsliding. The Bennett Flat landslide failed as a single event between 900-270 ka and 16.8 ka; the landslide has a depletion-zone volume of 1.1 km super(3), but only 0.3 km super(3) of debris is discernible in the accumulation zone. The Foster Creek landslide also appears to have failed as a single event between 180 and 16.8 ka; the landslide has a depletion-zone volume of 2.9 km super(3), but only 0.3 km super(3) of debris is discernible in the accumulation zone. The Punchbowl landslide evidences multiple events, the most recent of which failed in the Holocene and had a volume of 0.4 km super(3); 0.5 km super(3) of debris is found in the accumulation zone. JF - Bulletin of the Geological Society of America AU - Badger, Thomas C AU - Watters, Robert J AD - Washington State Department of Transportation, 1655 South 2nd Avenue, P.O. Box 47365, Olympia, Washington 98504-7365, USA Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 687 EP - 697 PB - Geological Society of America, 3300 Penrose Place PO Box 9140 Boulder CO 80301 USA VL - 116 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7606, 0016-7606 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - landslides KW - neotectonics KW - Basin and Range KW - Lake County (Oregon) KW - geotechnical studies KW - Earthquakes KW - Lake basins KW - USA, Oregon, Summer L. KW - Sedimentary Rocks KW - Holocene KW - Mountains KW - Landslides KW - Avalanches KW - Neogene KW - Subsidence KW - Sedimentary rocks KW - Escarpments KW - Lake Basins KW - USA, Oregon KW - Groundwater KW - Detritus KW - Accumulation KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17398075?accountid=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=Bulletin+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Gigantic+seismogenic+landslides+of+Summer+Lake+basin%2C+south-central+Oregon&rft.au=Badger%2C+Thomas+C%3BWatters%2C+Robert+J&rft.aulast=Badger&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=116&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=687&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+the+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167606&rft_id=info:doi/10.1130%2FB25333.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Earthquakes; Landslides; Neogene; Lake basins; Subsidence; Sedimentary rocks; Escarpments; Holocene; Mountains; Avalanches; Lake Basins; Groundwater; Sedimentary Rocks; Accumulation; Detritus; USA, Oregon, Summer L.; USA, Oregon DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/B25333.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 197 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36373652; 10765-040212_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 197 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373583; 10767-040214_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373497; 10767-040214_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373436; 10767-040214_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373362; 10766-040213_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/36373362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 176 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36372070; 10765-040212_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 176 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 171 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36371665; 10765-040212_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 171 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 196 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36371475; 10765-040212_0196 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 196 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371378; 10766-040213_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/36371378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371309; 10766-040213_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/36371309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 187 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36371223; 10765-040212_0187 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 187 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 174 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370940; 10765-040212_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 174 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 186 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370836; 10765-040212_0186 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 186 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 173 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370566; 10765-040212_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 173 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 189 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370252; 10765-040212_0189 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 189 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 169 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370086; 10765-040212_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 169 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 198 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36370067; 10765-040212_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 198 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 188 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369916; 10765-040212_0188 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 188 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 162 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369709; 10765-040212_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 162 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 177 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369680; 10765-040212_0177 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 177 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 182 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369560; 10765-040212_0182 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 182 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 175 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369300; 10765-040212_0175 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 175 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 123 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369296; 10765-040212_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 123 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 247 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36369004; 10765-040212_0247 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 247 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 172 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36368939; 10765-040212_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 172 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 157 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36368752; 10765-040212_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 157 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368742; 10766-040213_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/36368742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 141 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36368470; 10765-040212_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 141 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 152 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36368319; 10765-040212_0152 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 152 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 184 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36368105; 10765-040212_0184 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 184 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367992; 10767-040214_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 113 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367940; 10765-040212_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 113 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 239 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367935; 10765-040212_0239 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 239 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 183 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367732; 10765-040212_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 183 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 120 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367702; 10765-040212_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 120 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 233 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367529; 10765-040212_0233 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 233 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 156 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367333; 10765-040212_0156 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 156 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 240 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367298; 10765-040212_0240 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 240 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367229; 10766-040213_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/36367229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 145 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367200; 10765-040212_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 145 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 88 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367154; 10765-040212_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 88 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 223 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367039; 10765-040212_0223 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 223 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 148 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36367019; 10765-040212_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 148 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 242 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366974; 10765-040212_0242 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 242 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 132 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366934; 10765-040212_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 132 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 168 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366790; 10765-040212_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 168 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 253 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366780; 10765-040212_0253 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 253 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 144 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366757; 10765-040212_0144 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 144 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 80 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366737; 10765-040212_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 80 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 143 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366630; 10765-040212_0143 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 143 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 210 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366617; 10765-040212_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 210 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 99 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366519; 10765-040212_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 99 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 126 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366344; 10765-040212_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 126 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 78 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366302; 10765-040212_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 222 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366301; 10765-040212_0222 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 222 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 164 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366193; 10765-040212_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 164 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 216 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366134; 10765-040212_0216 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 216 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 96 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366104; 10765-040212_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 251 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36366061; 10765-040212_0251 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 251 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 124 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365843; 10765-040212_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 124 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 158 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365838; 10765-040212_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 158 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 204 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365796; 10765-040212_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 204 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 56 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365795; 10765-040212_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 244 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365740; 10765-040212_0244 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 244 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 163 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365671; 10765-040212_0163 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 163 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 213 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365565; 10765-040212_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 213 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 249 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365536; 10765-040212_0249 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 249 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 250 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365529; 10765-040212_0250 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 250 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36365511; 10767-040214_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 155 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365303; 10765-040212_0155 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 155 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 209 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365300; 10765-040212_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 209 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 151 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365266; 10765-040212_0151 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 151 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 138 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365218; 10765-040212_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 138 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 243 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365200; 10765-040212_0243 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 243 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 121 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365115; 10765-040212_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 121 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 245 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365009; 10765-040212_0245 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 245 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 66 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36365001; 10765-040212_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 207 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364943; 10765-040212_0207 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 207 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 139 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364731; 10765-040212_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 139 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364630; 10765-040212_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 133 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364531; 10765-040212_0133 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 133 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 153 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364461; 10765-040212_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 153 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 255 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364314; 10765-040212_0255 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 255 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 232 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364274; 10765-040212_0232 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 232 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 131 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36364123; 10765-040212_0131 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 131 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 257 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363945; 10765-040212_0257 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 257 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 116 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363843; 10765-040212_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 116 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 73 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363727; 10765-040212_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 252 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363677; 10765-040212_0252 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 252 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 229 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363617; 10765-040212_0229 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 229 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 235 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363603; 10765-040212_0235 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 235 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 241 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363474; 10765-040212_0241 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 241 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 109 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363381; 10765-040212_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 109 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 114 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363280; 10765-040212_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 114 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 110 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363145; 10765-040212_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 110 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 70 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36363009; 10765-040212_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36362943; 10767-040214_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 238 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362744; 10765-040212_0238 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 238 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 69 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362710; 10765-040212_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 97 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362636; 10765-040212_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 97 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 226 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362630; 10765-040212_0226 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 226 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 106 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362554; 10765-040212_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 106 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 108 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362493; 10765-040212_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 108 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 55 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362382; 10765-040212_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 208 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362290; 10765-040212_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 208 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 224 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362266; 10765-040212_0224 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 224 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 140 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362201; 10765-040212_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 140 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 215 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36362075; 10765-040212_0215 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 215 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 81 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361974; 10765-040212_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 81 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 95 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361934; 10765-040212_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 101 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361798; 10765-040212_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 101 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 64 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361765; 10765-040212_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 205 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361590; 10765-040212_0205 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 205 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 127 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361506; 10765-040212_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 127 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 214 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361401; 10765-040212_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 214 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 206 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361395; 10765-040212_0206 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 206 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 190 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361355; 10765-040212_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 190 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 107 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361194; 10765-040212_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 107 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 42 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361184; 10765-040212_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 45 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361125; 10765-040212_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 82 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36361089; 10765-040212_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360989; 10765-040212_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 194 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360922; 10765-040212_0194 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 194 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 122 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360832; 10765-040212_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 122 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 68 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360825; 10765-040212_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 202 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360765; 10765-040212_0202 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 202 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 72 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360491; 10765-040212_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 105 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360483; 10765-040212_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 105 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 41 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360478; 10765-040212_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 58 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360354; 10765-040212_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 19 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360290; 10765-040212_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 154 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360177; 10765-040212_0154 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 154 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 201 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36360073; 10765-040212_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 201 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 50 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359791; 10765-040212_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 48 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359755; 10765-040212_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 53 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359621; 10765-040212_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 60 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359347; 10765-040212_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 193 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359317; 10765-040212_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 193 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36359049; 10765-040212_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 52 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358998; 10765-040212_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 39 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358904; 10765-040212_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358819; 10765-040212_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 136 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358695; 10765-040212_0136 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 136 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 85 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358612; 10765-040212_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358243; 10765-040212_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 31 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358217; 10765-040212_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36358173; 10765-040212_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 112 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357927; 10765-040212_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 112 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 43 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357900; 10765-040212_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357578; 10765-040212_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357527; 10765-040212_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357422; 10765-040212_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357359; 10765-040212_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 98 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357188; 10765-040212_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 98 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 74 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36357167; 10765-040212_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 74 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 149 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356902; 10765-040212_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 149 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356680; 10765-040212_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356603; 10765-040212_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356542; 10765-040212_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 37 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356536; 10765-040212_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 246 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356472; 10765-040212_0246 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 246 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 94 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356449; 10765-040212_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 94 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 167 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356245; 10765-040212_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 167 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 147 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36356138; 10765-040212_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 147 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 63 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355850; 10765-040212_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355802; 10765-040212_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 160 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355621; 10765-040212_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 160 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 237 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355557; 10765-040212_0237 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 237 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 119 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355512; 10765-040212_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 119 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 77 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355268; 10765-040212_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 77 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355216; 10765-040212_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 230 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355036; 10765-040212_0230 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 230 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 111 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355032; 10765-040212_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 111 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 115 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36355005; 10765-040212_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 115 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 234 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354799; 10765-040212_0234 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 234 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 71 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354711; 10765-040212_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 225 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354523; 10765-040212_0225 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 225 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 93 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354510; 10765-040212_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 92 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354500; 10765-040212_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 92 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 231 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354301; 10765-040212_0231 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 231 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354213; 10765-040212_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 236 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354087; 10765-040212_0236 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 236 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 103 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354045; 10765-040212_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 103 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 90 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36354039; 10765-040212_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 90 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353755; 10765-040212_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 227 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353645; 10765-040212_0227 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 227 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 102 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353640; 10765-040212_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 102 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 191 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353322; 10765-040212_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 191 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353302; 10765-040212_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36353227; 10767-040214_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 200 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353210; 10765-040212_0200 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 200 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 49 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353134; 10765-040212_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 75 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36353123; 10765-040212_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 221 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352948; 10765-040212_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 221 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 25 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352865; 10765-040212_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 118 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352761; 10765-040212_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 118 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 218 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352757; 10765-040212_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 218 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 192 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352721; 10765-040212_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 192 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 44 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352665; 10765-040212_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 67 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352541; 10765-040212_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 91 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352330; 10765-040212_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 91 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36352280; 10767-040214_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352265; 10765-040212_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 89 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36352124; 10765-040212_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 89 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 61 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351854; 10765-040212_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 26 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351820; 10765-040212_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 86 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351639; 10765-040212_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 86 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 211 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351607; 10765-040212_0211 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 211 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36351471; 10767-040214_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 46 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351417; 10765-040212_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 79 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36351137; 10765-040212_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 79 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 40 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36350869; 10765-040212_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 87 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36350815; 10765-040212_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 51 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36350225; 10765-040212_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36350001; 10765-040212_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 47 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36350000; 10765-040212_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36349558; 10765-040212_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 76 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36349506; 10765-040212_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36349092; 10765-040212_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36349077; 10765-040212_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 257] T2 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36348592; 10765-040212_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLD LINE PHASE II: PASADENA TO MONTCLAIR - FOOTHILL EXTENSION, LOS ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16359432; 10767 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a rail extension of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California are proposed. The 2,000-foot-wide study area encompasses 13 adjoining cities lying along the Interstate 210 (I-210) corridor and railroad rights-of-way between Pasadena on the east and Montclair on the west. The corridor includes the cities of Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont in Los Angeles County and Montclair and Upland in San Bernardino County. Substantial congestion exists on I-210 and parallel and crossing arterials, which are discontinuous, and the associated problems will worsen in coming years. Commuter rail service is available only in the eastern quarter of the study corridor and that service is linked only to downtown Los Angeles. Transit service between the endpoints of the study corridor is limited to three bus routes. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a transportation system management (TMS) alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include an LRT on triple tracks and an LRT on double tracks. Two LRT alignments are under consideration. Two termini are under consideration. The first termini alternative would involve construction of an 8.7-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Irwindale. The system would be supported by four stations, 2,350 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. The second termini alternative would extend 24 miles from the city of Pasadena on the west to the cities of Montclair and Upland on the east. The system would be supported by 12 stations, 7,150 parking spaces, and a maintenance and operations facility. Each of the LRT design alternatives is assessed for the 8.7-mile and the 24-mile options. Under either termini alternative, the proposed maintenance facility would encompass 33 acres and would accommodate 170 vehicles, including 19 to 29 for the 24-mile extension and the remainder for the balance of the overall Gold Line, which would extend 44 miles if the 24-mile extension were completed. The facility would support an ultimate system operating three-car trains at five-minute headways. Depending on the alternative selected, the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority may seek a federal transit New Starts grant to fund the project. Capital costs of the TMS, 8.7-mile two-track, 8.7-mile three-track, 24-mile two-track, and 24-mile three-track alternatives are estimated at $64.8 million, $483.8 million, $525.2 million, $880.4 million, and $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operation and maintenance costs for are estimated at approximately $1.1 million for the TSM, 8-7-mile LRT, and 24-mile LRT alternatives. The 24-mile LRT extension has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The LRT extension would provide a high-capacity rail improvement that would respond to problems associated with the corridor's only freeway that currently does not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast peak-hour demands. Community desires for a transit system would be satisfied, and transit ridership along the corridor would increase enormously. Air quality would improve significantly, and noise levels along I-210 would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: LRT land requirements, particularly for stations and parking, would result in the displacement of residences and businesses and cropland, and the clearance of trees and other vegetation and the associated terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species. Removal of trees would mar visual aesthetics in some areas along the LRT line extension. During construction, excessive noise levels would affect residents and businesses, and vibratory impacts could cause some structural damage. Subsurface structural remains or prehistoric sites could be disturbed or damaged. The LRT would traverse a seismically active area. Freight movements along parallel and crossing rail lines would be affected. 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(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040214, Volume 1 (Executive Summary)--210 pages, Volume 2 (Draft EIS: Book 1)--501 pages, Volume 3 (Draft EIS: Book 2)--606 pages, Volume 3-Conceptual Engineering Drawings--Oversized Supplement, Volume 4 (Related Development Projects)--13 pages, Volume 4 (Bridge Analysis)--48 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Traffic Studies--541 pages, Volume 4 (Cultural Resources)--221 pages, Volume 4 (Noise and Vibration Study)--202 pages, Volume 4 (Alternatives Analysis)--117 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Hazardous Materials Study)--688 13 pages, Volume 4 (Air Quality Study)--441 pages and maps, Volume 4 (Biology)--86 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GOLD+LINE+PHASE+II%3A+PASADENA+TO+MONTCLAIR+-+FOOTHILL+EXTENSION%2C+LOS+ANGELES+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 16357604; 10765 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to improve transit access and mobility on Manhattan's East Side, New York City, New York is proposed. The proposed facilities would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, is also included in the study. In the primary area, only the congested Lexington Avenue line provides full north-south rapid transit service. Buses serve the corridor, and many of these carry rider volumes that exceed many rapid transit lines in other cities. Moreover, the bus routes are often slowed by congested urban streets. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side, but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the eastern portions of the neighborhood. Five categories of interrelated public transportation problems were identified, specifically, constrained capacity, poor transit accessibility (particularly for lines running north-south), overly long travel times, lack of flexibility to accommodate demand, and environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with a strained transit system. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and a transportation systems management (TSM) scheme, were considered in the draft EIS of August 1999. The TSM scheme would include dedicated bus lanes on First and Second avenues. Build alternatives include: 1) a new East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and continuing on the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan and 2) the same new subway supplemented by a new light rail transit (LRT) line serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. Cost estimates at the date of the final EIS for the TSM and Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were $204 million, $3.88 billion, and $5.09 billion, respectively. A March 2003 draft supplemental EIS considered a No Action Alternative and an action alternative related to the Second Avenue Subway. This is also the concern of this final EIS. The subway would consist of a new, two-track rail line extending approximately 8.5 miles along the length of Manhattan's East Side corridor from Lexington Avenue at 125th Street in Harlem at the north end of Manhattan to Water Street at Hanover Square. The subway would operate on two routes: the full-length Second Avenue route between 125th Street and Hanover Square, and a second route along Second Avenue from 125th Street to 63rd Street, then west along the existing 63rd Street Line and south down the Broadway Line. The subway would serve East Harlem, the Upper East Side, Midtown, Gramercy Park/Union Square, the East Village/Lower East Side/Chinatown, and Lower Manhattan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Second Avenue Subway Project would improve access to East Side neighborhoods and improve service for passengers traveling into and through the East Side corridor on the new service as well as for passengers on the existing Lexington Avenue Line. With a new connection at 125th Street, the project would also improve regional access to the East Side from the Metro-North Railroad. From 42nd Street, it would also serve Long Island commuters. Commuter travel times would decline significantly, particularly during peak periods. The build alternatives would also reduce the number of subway passengers having to stand during off-peak hours, reduce subway delays, and reduce private automobile and taxi trips within the study area. Reduction in the number of motor vehicle trips under the subway alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Subway construction would result in temporary disruptions to commercial, transportation-related, and social activities in the area surrounding the construction site, particularly if cut-and-cover construction methods were adopted. Six parks would be affected during construction. The project would result in the displacement of residences and businesses, particularly at station sites. Historic and archaeological resource sites would also be disturbed or destroyed. Construction and operation of the subway would result in significant emissions of air pollutants and noise and result in significant vibration impacts. Portions of the project would affect areas located within the city's coastal zone. The project would result in cumulative adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Grand and Chrystie streets under one of the construction method options. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 99-0390D, Volume 23, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0340D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040212, Volume 1--1,681 pages and maps, Volume 2--446 pages, Volume 3--547 pages, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Urban Development KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SECOND+AVENUE+SUBWAY+IN+THE+BOROUGH+OF+MANHATTAN%2C+NEW+YORK+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, New York, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16357336; 10766 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of State Route (SR) 241 from Oso Parkway to Interstate 5 (I-5) in south Orange County and northern San Diego County, the improvement of arterial highways, and the widening of I-5 from the Orange County boundary to the interchange with I-405 in southern California are proposed. The continued development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses in south Orange County and throughout the rest of the county has resulted in growing traffic congestion during peak travel periods, significantly reducing the level of service of major travel routes. Six SR 241 corridor alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The SR 241 corridor alternatives would extend existing SR 241 south to I-5 or an intermediate point at an intersecting arterial road, providing four to eight lanes on alignments extending nine to 16 miles. Each of the corridor alternatives has an initial phase and an ultimate phase. The initial phase, which would begin construction immediately, would provide four lanes, and the ultimate phase, which would be delayed until 2025, would provide six to eight lanes. In addition to the SR 241 alternatives, this EIS considers an Arterial Improvements Only Alternative, which would improve Antonio Parkway/Avenida La Plata from Oso Parkway to Avenida Pico, providing one or two additional lanes in each direction. This alternative would be constructed over a period of 30 months. Finally, an alternative involving the widening of I-5 is considered. This alternative would provide additional general purpose, auxiliary and high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 from I-40-5 south to the county boundary in South San Clemente. The I-5 alternative would require 30 months to construct. In addition to the eight abovementioned build alternatives, two No Action Alternatives, which assume different background land use levels, are also analyzed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate existing and future peak hour traffic congestion on the existing circulation network in south Orange County, implement the Orange County transportation plan by completing the corridor system in south Orange County between existing SR 241 and I-5, minimize through traffic use of the existing arterial highway network in south Orange County by diverting traffic that cannot be accommodated on I-5 to a transportation corridor level facility rather than to arterial highways, and provide an alternative access route between south Orange County and central and northeastern orange County to serve existing and developing employment centers and major attractions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of hundreds of residences and businesses, as well as wetlands, vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, 100-year floodplain land, agricultural land, a landfill, and natural vegetation. Certain alignments would traverse designated coastal zone land. Access to mineral resources could be eliminated at certain sites. The project would disturb paleontologic and archaeologic resource sites; in addition, the I-5 alternative would disturb several historic sites. The Club Road crossing of San Onofre Creek would be subject to flooding during large storm events. Two or four parks, two trails, and numerous other recreational sites could be affected by construction activities, loss of land, and /or increased noise levels. Construction and operations activities would affect the use of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Light and glare and highway structures would affect visual aesthetics at several locations. Fish-bearing streams would be affected. Air quality standards for nitrogen oxides would be violated, and traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous residential sites, though noise levels at more than half of these sites would be reduced to acceptable levels by noise barriers. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. The risk of wildfire in the area would increase. The facilities would traverse seismically active areas. 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.)m and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040213, Executive Summary--184 pages and maps, Draft EIS--1,273 pages and maps, Volume 3--273 pages and maps, Volume 4--1,298 pages and maps, Volume 5--598 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 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/16357336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ORANGE+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+ORANGE+AND+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36357966; 10757-040204_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36354189; 10757-040204_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36352196; 10757-040204_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36352022; 10757-040204_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36348463; 10757-040204_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSSHARBOR FRIEGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT IN KINGS, QUEENS, AND RICHMOND COUNTIES, NEW YORK AND HUDSON, UNION, MIDDLESEX, AND ESSEX COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY. AN - 16357750; 10757 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a rail freight tunnel across the New York Harbor to connect New York and New Jersey is proposed. The metropolitan tri-state region, including portions of southern New York, northern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut, is facing a major urban freight mobility challenge. For the past 50 years, the freight transportation system east of the Hudson River has not kept pace with the rapid growth in goods movement in the region. While the East-of-Hudson region has invested heavily in improved public transportation and passenger roadway facilities, the freight system has failed to evolve with changing freight patterns and technology. The only direct connection from the heavily populated region east of the Hudson is via truck, which carry almost 80 percent of all freight. The region east of the Hudson also suffers from chronic roadway congestion throughout most of the day and is vulnerable to major disruptions, providing only limited redundancy at a few key links. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve development of a rail freight tunnel crossing of the New York Harbor via either a single- or double-tunnel facility. The preferred tunnel alignment would extend from Greenville Yard in Jersey City, New Jersey to the Bay Ridge Branch in Brooklyn, New York. The alignment would involve the initial construction of a tunnel under the New York Harbor. The tunnel would be designed to accommodate future construction of a parallel tunnel. Demand forecasts indicate that sufficient demand will exist in the project design year of 2025 to support the construction of a second tunnel. The single-tunnel system would include provision of new rail yard capacity in West Maspeth, improvements at existing yards and rail lines, and construction of additional tracks and provision of increased clearance heights. The tunnel would be completed between 2001 and 2015. The second tunnel would require further expansion of the West Maspeth yard and installation of rail track in certain locations not required for the single-tunnel system. If implemented, the double-tunnel system would be operational by 2025. Capital costs of the single- and double-tunnel systems are estimated at $4.77 billion and $7.35 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve the movement of goods throughout northern New Jersey and southern New York. The project would create a more modally balanced boods movement system, improve environmental quality in the region by diverting freight movements to less polluting modes of transportation, and promote economic development. Provision of a strategic systemic redundancy in the transportation network would ensure movement of goods across the Hudson in the event of disruptions at particular key links. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the single-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 25 to 29 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments of rail, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. Development of the double-tunnel system would result in the displacement of 44 to 52 businesses, degradation of visual aesthetics due to increases in rail traffic, damage to the historic character of the Greenville rail yard transfer bridge system and the Bay Ridge Branch, damage to the archaeologically significant Morris Canal and potential shipwreck sites as well as archaeological resources in West Maspeth, violation of air quality standards at various points along the rail system, violation of noise standards and vibration impacts along certain rail segments, and loss of phragmite wetland patches and least tern habitat. The double tunnel system would alter the social character of the communities of Bay Ridge Branch and Queens portion of the Bay Ridge Branch due to widespread noise impacts. Workers would encounter contaminated material sites during each tunnel construction project. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040204, Volume 1--487 pages, Volume 2--652 pages, Appendix 1 (Visual and Cultural Resources)--622 pages, Appendix 2 (Transportation)--497 pages and maps, Appendix 3 (Air Quality)--390 pages and maps, Appendix 4/5 (Noise and Vibration /Hazardous Materials)--67 pages, Appendix 6 (Water Quality and Natural Resource)--257 pages, Appendix 7 (Land Use and Economic Conditions)--89 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 1)--844 pages, Appendix 8 - (Process and Public Participation, Part 2)--331 pages, April 26, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=CROSSHARBOR+FRIEGHT+MOVEMENT+PROJECT+IN+KINGS%2C+QUEENS%2C+AND+RICHMOND+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK+AND+HUDSON%2C+UNION%2C+MIDDLESEX%2C+AND+ESSEX+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER COUNTY TO SALT LAKE CITY COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT, WEBER, DAVIS, AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WEBER COUNTY TO SALT LAKE CITY COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT, WEBER, DAVIS, AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363934; 10751-040198_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 44-mile commuter rail transit line connecting Salt Lake City and Pleasant View at the Weber/Box Elder County line in Weber County, Nevada is proposed. The study area is bounded by the Great Salt Lake to the west, the Wasatch Mountains to the east, 700 South in Salt Lake City to the south, and the Weber/Box Elder County line to the north. Numerous local and regional transportation plans have recognized the importance of commuter rail as part of a shared solution for meeting regional transportation and land use goals and *objectives in the study area. The project would involve construction of a new track along the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor, as well as the provision of nine stations and associated parking facilities. Stations would be provided at Salt Lake City, North Temple, Woods Cross, Farmington, Layton, Clearfield, Roy, Ogden, and Pleasant View. In September 2002, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) acquired 175 miles of railroad rights-of-way from the UPRR, including the existing UPRR diesel locomotive maintenance shop and yard, located between 600 North and 1000 North in Salt Lake City, adjacent to the UPRR mainline; UTA would use this site for the transit system maintenance facility. In addition to the transit alternative, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the project corridor through the year 2030; provide efficient, high-capacity transit service in the corridor; enhance the economic potential of the corridor by improving access to existing and planned employment and activity centers and by creating transit-oriented development opportunities; support regional plans and policies that call for the provision of a balanced transportation system; and support regional air quality goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the direct displacement of 162 acres of farmland, two acres of pinyon-juniper woodland, 22 acres of riparian woodland, and 450 acres of urban land. The project would result in the displacement of four businesses and four single-family residences; 150 jobs would be affected due to business displacements. The facility would traverse two rivers and five creeks, could alter floodplain functioning and groundwater recharge and movement, and would result in the displacement of 18.4 acres of wetlands. Traffic volumes would increase near six of the proposed stations, and traffic delays would occur at 43 at-grade crossings along the transit alignment; at-grade crossings would also pose a safety hazard. Though no severe noise impacts would occur, noise levels would increase in the vicinity of 346 single-family residences, 15 multi-family residences, and 88 mobile homes. Vibration impacts would affect 61 single-family, six multi-family, and 57 mobile home residences. Seven historic and four archaeologic sites would be impacted. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. Structures associated with the transit line would degrade visual aesthetics. Numerous utility, distribution, and communication lines would require relocation. Noise, traffic, and other site-specific impacts would affect low-income, minority, and or elderly populations. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act JF - EPA number: 040198, 386 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Denver, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36357225; 10750-040197_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. 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). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey 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/36357225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER COUNTY TO SALT LAKE CITY COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT, WEBER, DAVIS, AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WEBER COUNTY TO SALT LAKE CITY COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT, WEBER, DAVIS, AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36356581; 10751-040198_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 44-mile commuter rail transit line connecting Salt Lake City and Pleasant View at the Weber/Box Elder County line in Weber County, Nevada is proposed. The study area is bounded by the Great Salt Lake to the west, the Wasatch Mountains to the east, 700 South in Salt Lake City to the south, and the Weber/Box Elder County line to the north. Numerous local and regional transportation plans have recognized the importance of commuter rail as part of a shared solution for meeting regional transportation and land use goals and *objectives in the study area. The project would involve construction of a new track along the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor, as well as the provision of nine stations and associated parking facilities. Stations would be provided at Salt Lake City, North Temple, Woods Cross, Farmington, Layton, Clearfield, Roy, Ogden, and Pleasant View. In September 2002, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) acquired 175 miles of railroad rights-of-way from the UPRR, including the existing UPRR diesel locomotive maintenance shop and yard, located between 600 North and 1000 North in Salt Lake City, adjacent to the UPRR mainline; UTA would use this site for the transit system maintenance facility. In addition to the transit alternative, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the project corridor through the year 2030; provide efficient, high-capacity transit service in the corridor; enhance the economic potential of the corridor by improving access to existing and planned employment and activity centers and by creating transit-oriented development opportunities; support regional plans and policies that call for the provision of a balanced transportation system; and support regional air quality goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the direct displacement of 162 acres of farmland, two acres of pinyon-juniper woodland, 22 acres of riparian woodland, and 450 acres of urban land. The project would result in the displacement of four businesses and four single-family residences; 150 jobs would be affected due to business displacements. The facility would traverse two rivers and five creeks, could alter floodplain functioning and groundwater recharge and movement, and would result in the displacement of 18.4 acres of wetlands. Traffic volumes would increase near six of the proposed stations, and traffic delays would occur at 43 at-grade crossings along the transit alignment; at-grade crossings would also pose a safety hazard. Though no severe noise impacts would occur, noise levels would increase in the vicinity of 346 single-family residences, 15 multi-family residences, and 88 mobile homes. Vibration impacts would affect 61 single-family, six multi-family, and 57 mobile home residences. Seven historic and four archaeologic sites would be impacted. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. Structures associated with the transit line would degrade visual aesthetics. Numerous utility, distribution, and communication lines would require relocation. Noise, traffic, and other site-specific impacts would affect low-income, minority, and or elderly populations. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act JF - EPA number: 040198, 386 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Denver, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349943; 10750-040197_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. 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). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey 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/36349943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 16348709; 10750 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. 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). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey 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/16348709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEBER COUNTY TO SALT LAKE CITY COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT, WEBER, DAVIS, AND SALT LAKE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16345533; 10751 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 44-mile commuter rail transit line connecting Salt Lake City and Pleasant View at the Weber/Box Elder County line in Weber County, Nevada is proposed. The study area is bounded by the Great Salt Lake to the west, the Wasatch Mountains to the east, 700 South in Salt Lake City to the south, and the Weber/Box Elder County line to the north. Numerous local and regional transportation plans have recognized the importance of commuter rail as part of a shared solution for meeting regional transportation and land use goals and *objectives in the study area. The project would involve construction of a new track along the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor, as well as the provision of nine stations and associated parking facilities. Stations would be provided at Salt Lake City, North Temple, Woods Cross, Farmington, Layton, Clearfield, Roy, Ogden, and Pleasant View. In September 2002, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) acquired 175 miles of railroad rights-of-way from the UPRR, including the existing UPRR diesel locomotive maintenance shop and yard, located between 600 North and 1000 North in Salt Lake City, adjacent to the UPRR mainline; UTA would use this site for the transit system maintenance facility. In addition to the transit alternative, this draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would facilitate safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the project corridor through the year 2030; provide efficient, high-capacity transit service in the corridor; enhance the economic potential of the corridor by improving access to existing and planned employment and activity centers and by creating transit-oriented development opportunities; support regional plans and policies that call for the provision of a balanced transportation system; and support regional air quality goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the direct displacement of 162 acres of farmland, two acres of pinyon-juniper woodland, 22 acres of riparian woodland, and 450 acres of urban land. The project would result in the displacement of four businesses and four single-family residences; 150 jobs would be affected due to business displacements. The facility would traverse two rivers and five creeks, could alter floodplain functioning and groundwater recharge and movement, and would result in the displacement of 18.4 acres of wetlands. Traffic volumes would increase near six of the proposed stations, and traffic delays would occur at 43 at-grade crossings along the transit alignment; at-grade crossings would also pose a safety hazard. Though no severe noise impacts would occur, noise levels would increase in the vicinity of 346 single-family residences, 15 multi-family residences, and 88 mobile homes. Vibration impacts would affect 61 single-family, six multi-family, and 57 mobile home residences. Seven historic and four archaeologic sites would be impacted. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. Structures associated with the transit line would degrade visual aesthetics. Numerous utility, distribution, and communication lines would require relocation. Noise, traffic, and other site-specific impacts would affect low-income, minority, and or elderly populations. 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act JF - EPA number: 040198, 386 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEBER+COUNTY+TO+SALT+LAKE+CITY+COMMUTER+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+WEBER%2C+DAVIS%2C+AND+SALT+LAKE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Denver, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENHANCEMENT /EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 12-30 AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, GARY/CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, GARY, INDIANA. AN - 36438885; 10733 AB - PURPOSE: The enhancement and extension of Runway 12/30 and other facility improvements at Gary/Chicago International Airport in Gary, Indiana are proposed. Gary/Chicago International Airport is a commercial service primary airport located in northwestern Indiana. Southeast Airlines provides service as a supplemental carrier from the airport to Florida with MD-80 and DC-9 aircraft. The existing airfield configuration consists of two active runways; Runway 12-30 is the primary runway, with a length of 7,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. The primary runway and the associated runway safety area do not conform to current federal design standards. The project would include improvements to existing Runway 12-30 to allow it to conform with current federal standards, including modification of the associated safety area, relocation of EJ&E Railway, modification of ongoing cleanup activities, relocation of an airside perimeter roadway, extension of Runway 12 to the northwest approximately 546 feet by 150 feet, relocation of the Runway 12-30 navigational aids facilities; improvement of the Runway 12 safety area, relocation of the Runway 12 threshold to remove prior displacement, displacement of the Runway 30 threshold using declared distance standards approximately 546 feet to the northwest to improve the runway safety area, extension of parallel Taxiway A to the new end of Runway 12, and acquire land northwest and southeast of the airport for modifications and the provision of a safety area. Further improvements to Runway 12-30 would include extension of the length of Runway 12-30 up to approximately 1,354 feet by 150 feet; relocation of the runway's navigational aids facilities; extension of parallel Taxiway A to the new end of Runway 12-30; construction of deicing hold pads on Taxiway A at the ends of Runway 12 and Runway 30, development of two high-speed exit taxiways, improvement and extension of the Runway 12 safety area by approximately 1,100 feet, relocation of the Runway 12 threshold to the end of the extended runway pavement, In addition, the project would include expansion of the existing passenger terminal and apron by addition of a second story to the east or a single-story expansion to both the east and the west. Sites adjacent to extended Runway 12-30 would be analyzed for the placement of aviation-related development, including a new passenger terminal and air cargo areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By bringing Runway 12-30 up to federal standards, the project would significantly enhance the safety and efficiency of airfield operations. The additional runway length needed by existing and future air carrier and cargo operators would be provided, allowing the operators to operate in accordance with the appropriate load factors. Expansion of the terminal facility and associated apron would allow the airport to meet the demands of projected airline users. Selection and acquisition of new sites for a future passenger terminal and/or cargo facility would ensure appropriate capacity for these purposes at the airport. The number of residences exposed to excessive aircraft noise would decline due to more efficient runway operations. Expansion of airport capacity would provide a market boost to an economically depressed area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated emissions of carbon dioxide, volatilized organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, respectively, would be 0.6, 0.1, 5.1, 0.0, and 0.2 tons per year. The extent of impervious area at the airport would increase, thereby increasing stormwater runoff. Two wetland areas would be affected by fill. Project impacts would disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations, though these impacts would generally not be significant. The railway relocation component of the project would affect one state-listed endangered plant species (Bicknell Northern Crane's Bill) and one state herpetofauna species of concern (Northern cricket frog). Several hazardous waste sites lie within the areas to be developed. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 40101) and Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 47101) JF - EPA number: 040179, 1,421 pages, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Carbon Dioxide KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Minorities KW - Navigation Aids KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Particulates KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Volatile Organic Compounds KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MASTER+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT%2C+INCLUDING+RUNWAY+SAFETY+AREA+ENHANCEMENT+%2FEXTENSION+OF+RUNWAY+12-30+AND+OTHER+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+GARY%2FCHICAGO+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+GARY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=MASTER+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT%2C+INCLUDING+RUNWAY+SAFETY+AREA+ENHANCEMENT+%2FEXTENSION+OF+RUNWAY+12-30+AND+OTHER+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+GARY%2FCHICAGO+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+GARY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Des Planes, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36429730; 10731 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. 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 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36352976; 10731-040177_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. 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 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36352907; 10731-040177_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. 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 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENHANCEMENT /EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 12-30 AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, GARY/CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, GARY, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENHANCEMENT /EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 12-30 AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, GARY/CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, GARY, INDIANA. AN - 36351342; 10733-040179_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The enhancement and extension of Runway 12/30 and other facility improvements at Gary/Chicago International Airport in Gary, Indiana are proposed. Gary/Chicago International Airport is a commercial service primary airport located in northwestern Indiana. Southeast Airlines provides service as a supplemental carrier from the airport to Florida with MD-80 and DC-9 aircraft. The existing airfield configuration consists of two active runways; Runway 12-30 is the primary runway, with a length of 7,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. The primary runway and the associated runway safety area do not conform to current federal design standards. The project would include improvements to existing Runway 12-30 to allow it to conform with current federal standards, including modification of the associated safety area, relocation of EJ&E Railway, modification of ongoing cleanup activities, relocation of an airside perimeter roadway, extension of Runway 12 to the northwest approximately 546 feet by 150 feet, relocation of the Runway 12-30 navigational aids facilities; improvement of the Runway 12 safety area, relocation of the Runway 12 threshold to remove prior displacement, displacement of the Runway 30 threshold using declared distance standards approximately 546 feet to the northwest to improve the runway safety area, extension of parallel Taxiway A to the new end of Runway 12, and acquire land northwest and southeast of the airport for modifications and the provision of a safety area. Further improvements to Runway 12-30 would include extension of the length of Runway 12-30 up to approximately 1,354 feet by 150 feet; relocation of the runway's navigational aids facilities; extension of parallel Taxiway A to the new end of Runway 12-30; construction of deicing hold pads on Taxiway A at the ends of Runway 12 and Runway 30, development of two high-speed exit taxiways, improvement and extension of the Runway 12 safety area by approximately 1,100 feet, relocation of the Runway 12 threshold to the end of the extended runway pavement, In addition, the project would include expansion of the existing passenger terminal and apron by addition of a second story to the east or a single-story expansion to both the east and the west. Sites adjacent to extended Runway 12-30 would be analyzed for the placement of aviation-related development, including a new passenger terminal and air cargo areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By bringing Runway 12-30 up to federal standards, the project would significantly enhance the safety and efficiency of airfield operations. The additional runway length needed by existing and future air carrier and cargo operators would be provided, allowing the operators to operate in accordance with the appropriate load factors. Expansion of the terminal facility and associated apron would allow the airport to meet the demands of projected airline users. Selection and acquisition of new sites for a future passenger terminal and/or cargo facility would ensure appropriate capacity for these purposes at the airport. The number of residences exposed to excessive aircraft noise would decline due to more efficient runway operations. Expansion of airport capacity would provide a market boost to an economically depressed area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated emissions of carbon dioxide, volatilized organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, respectively, would be 0.6, 0.1, 5.1, 0.0, and 0.2 tons per year. The extent of impervious area at the airport would increase, thereby increasing stormwater runoff. Two wetland areas would be affected by fill. Project impacts would disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations, though these impacts would generally not be significant. The railway relocation component of the project would affect one state-listed endangered plant species (Bicknell Northern Crane's Bill) and one state herpetofauna species of concern (Northern cricket frog). Several hazardous waste sites lie within the areas to be developed. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 40101) and Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 47101) JF - EPA number: 040179, 1,421 pages, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Carbon Dioxide KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Minorities KW - Navigation Aids KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Particulates KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Volatile Organic Compounds KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Indiana KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MASTER+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT%2C+INCLUDING+RUNWAY+SAFETY+AREA+ENHANCEMENT+%2FEXTENSION+OF+RUNWAY+12-30+AND+OTHER+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+GARY%2FCHICAGO+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+GARY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=MASTER+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT%2C+INCLUDING+RUNWAY+SAFETY+AREA+ENHANCEMENT+%2FEXTENSION+OF+RUNWAY+12-30+AND+OTHER+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+GARY%2FCHICAGO+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+GARY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Des Planes, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 36435871; 10727 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion. inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. THree 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, supported by continuous 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. Interchange options for both alternatives would be considered at MF 450, Cronson/Crawford Boulevard, MD 424, Wagh Chapel/Reidel Road, and MD 175. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would result in the displacement of three to 12 residences, 12 to 18 businesses, 9.5 to 41.2 to 9.5 acres of wetlands, 0.5 to 2.1 acres of parkland, and 60 to 83 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 42 to 50 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter nine or 10 hazardous materials sites. Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 5 would result in the displacement of one to five residences, nine to 16 businesses, 11.6 to 16.5 of wetlands, up to two acres of parkland, and 54 to 70 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 46 to 48 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter seven to nine hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025), though two of the sites would be protected by noise abatement structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040173, Draft EIS--276 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 36351296; 10727-040173_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion. inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. THree 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, supported by continuous 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. Interchange options for both alternatives would be considered at MF 450, Cronson/Crawford Boulevard, MD 424, Wagh Chapel/Reidel Road, and MD 175. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would result in the displacement of three to 12 residences, 12 to 18 businesses, 9.5 to 41.2 to 9.5 acres of wetlands, 0.5 to 2.1 acres of parkland, and 60 to 83 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 42 to 50 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter nine or 10 hazardous materials sites. Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 5 would result in the displacement of one to five residences, nine to 16 businesses, 11.6 to 16.5 of wetlands, up to two acres of parkland, and 54 to 70 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 46 to 48 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter seven to nine hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025), though two of the sites would be protected by noise abatement structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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: 040173, Draft EIS--276 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Using Value Capture to Finance Infrastructure and Encourage Compact Development AN - 759312092; 13593747 AB - Transportation investments often increase nearby land values. This can choke off development, pushing new growth to cheaper sites remote from these investments. This "leapfrog" development creates a demand for infrastructure extension that starts the process over again. Transportation infrastructure, intended to facilitate development, thus chases it away. Resulting sprawl strains the transportation, fiscal, and environmental systems upon which communities rely. Several jurisdictions around the country utilize a value-capture technique embedded in their property tax to help finance infrastructure and motivate affordable compact development. They reduce the tax rate on assessed building values and increase the tax rate on assessed land values. The resulting compact development should facilitate better transportation and accommodate economic growth with reduced fiscal and environmental costs. This technique's ability to foster affordable compact development might help bridge the gap between those who advocate growth boundaries and those who fear the impact of growth boundaries on affordable housing. JF - Public Works Management & Policy AU - Rybeck, Rick AD - District of Columbia Department of Transportation Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - Apr 2004 SP - 249 EP - 260 PB - Sage Publications Ltd., 6 Bonhill St. London EC2A 4PU UK VL - 8 IS - 4 SN - 1087-724X, 1087-724X KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Housing KW - economic growth KW - jurisdiction KW - Taxation KW - Transportation KW - Economics KW - infrastructure KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759312092?accountid=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=Public+Works+Management+%26+Policy&rft.atitle=Using+Value+Capture+to+Finance+Infrastructure+and+Encourage+Compact+Development&rft.au=Rybeck%2C+Rick&rft.aulast=Rybeck&rft.aufirst=Rick&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=249&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Public+Works+Management+%26+Policy&rft.issn=1087724X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F1087724X03262828 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Taxation; Transportation; Housing; Economics; economic growth; jurisdiction; infrastructure DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087724X03262828 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stratigraphy and paleoecology of the middle Pierre Shale along the Missouri River (central South Dakota) AN - 51790359; 2004-079418 AB - A study of the stratigraphy of the middle Pierre Shale was undertaken, concentrating on two sections located along the eastern side of the Missouri River, in the vicinity of Fort Thompson. The members of the Pierre Shale represented within these sections are, from oldest to youngest, the Gregory, Crow Creek, DeGrey and Verendrye. Micropaleontologic samples were analyzed with factor analysis performed to classify the assemblages. Four foraminiferal biofacies are recognized: two predominantly agglutinated, Boreal in origin and indicative of cooler, less oxygenated marine conditions, one shallower and the other deeper; one composed of calcareous benthic foraminifera, Tethyan in origin, indicative of warmer, more oxygenated and shallower waters; and a fourth, that is interpreted as a mixed assemblage, transitional between the others. (super 87) Sr/ (super 86) Sr age analysis yielded twelve useable results. Samples from near the Baculites compressus biozone gave an age of approximately 72.43 + or - 2 Ma, a number relatively close to Obradovich's 1993 time scale (super 40) Ar/ (super 39) Ar value for this horizon of 73.35 + or - 0.39 Ma. An average (super 87) Sr/ (super 86) Sr date of 72.41 Ma + or - 2 Ma was determined from fossil shell at a significant paleontologic find--the globular-toothed mosasaur, Globidens sp. More equivocal dates of 74.58, 74.63 and 75.09 + or - 2 Ma were determined for the basal Crow Creek Member, a calcareous sandy siltstone within the upper Gregory Member and the B. gregoryensis biozone located at the base of the section, respectively. Based on the data from this study, the Crow Creek Member is interpreted as the result of the Bearpaw transgression (TST) and the DeGrey/Verendrye Member's boundary is a maximum flooding surface. The Verendrye Member is interpreted as an HST; the basal Gregory Member is interpreted as an HST but part of the regressive pulse of the Claggett depositional cycle. A preliminary correlation with the eustatic record from the late-K coastal plain of New Jersey places the basal Crow Creek unconformity coincident with an unconformable bounded surface at the base of the Marshalltown Formation linked to Haq's UZA-4.4 onlap cycle. A distinct, calcareous sandy siltstone unit in the upper Gregory Member is suggested to represent a storm-dominated deposit or, perhaps, a tsunamtite resulting from the approximately coeval Manson Impact. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Hanczaryk, Paul A AU - Gallagher, William B AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 67 EP - 68 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 4 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Tethys KW - Missouri River KW - DeGrey Member KW - Cretaceous KW - Marshalltown Formation KW - Crow Creek Member KW - paleoclimatology KW - Iowa KW - Upper Cretaceous KW - Pierre Shale KW - Rb/Sr KW - paleoecology KW - Foraminifera KW - Verendrye Member KW - sedimentary rocks KW - dates KW - absolute age KW - Invertebrata KW - Protista KW - biostratigraphy KW - assemblages KW - shale KW - paleogeography KW - Mesozoic KW - sea-level changes KW - paleoenvironment KW - biofacies KW - marine environment KW - Manson impact structure KW - Fort Thompson South Dakota KW - clastic rocks KW - microfossils KW - South Dakota KW - Gregory Member KW - 12:Stratigraphy UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51790359?accountid=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=Stratigraphy+and+paleoecology+of+the+middle+Pierre+Shale+along+the+Missouri+River+%28central+South+Dakota%29&rft.au=Hanczaryk%2C+Paul+A%3BGallagher%2C+William+B%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Hanczaryk&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=67&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, 56th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, 100th 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; assemblages; biofacies; biostratigraphy; clastic rocks; Cretaceous; Crow Creek Member; dates; DeGrey Member; Foraminifera; Fort Thompson South Dakota; Gregory Member; Invertebrata; Iowa; Manson impact structure; marine environment; Marshalltown Formation; Mesozoic; microfossils; Missouri River; paleoclimatology; paleoecology; paleoenvironment; paleogeography; Pierre Shale; Protista; Rb/Sr; sea-level changes; sedimentary rocks; shale; South Dakota; Tethys; United States; Upper Cretaceous; Verendrye Member ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Caltrans' response to the 22 December 2003 San Simeon earthquake AN - 51138096; 2005-042637 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Mualchin, Lallina AU - Duffy, John AU - Merriam, Martha AU - Henyey, Thomas L AU - Jordan, Thomas H AU - McRaney, John K Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 294 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 75 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - processes KW - soil mechanics KW - geologic hazards KW - San Luis Obispo County California KW - magnitude KW - acceleration KW - seismic response KW - San Simeon earthquake 2003 KW - California KW - Southern California KW - seismicity KW - seismic risk KW - risk assessment KW - aseismic design KW - earthquakes KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51138096?accountid=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=Caltrans%27+response+to+the+22+December+2003+San+Simeon+earthquake&rft.au=Mualchin%2C+Lallina%3BDuffy%2C+John%3BMerriam%2C+Martha%3BHenyey%2C+Thomas+L%3BJordan%2C+Thomas+H%3BMcRaney%2C+John+K&rft.aulast=Mualchin&rft.aufirst=Lallina&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=294&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Seismological Society of America 2004 annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EAQNAT N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acceleration; aseismic design; California; earthquakes; geologic hazards; magnitude; processes; risk assessment; San Luis Obispo County California; San Simeon earthquake 2003; seismic response; seismic risk; seismicity; soil mechanics; Southern California; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363223; 10714-040159_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363121; 10714-040159_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36358931; 10714-040159_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36358409; 10714-040159_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36356451; 10714-040159_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36354371; 10714-040159_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36354216; 10714-040159_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353955; 10714-040159_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353835; 10714-040159_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353770; 10714-040159_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353325; 10714-040159_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353096; 10714-040159_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353017; 10714-040159_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352960; 10714-040159_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352424; 10714-040159_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36351090; 10714-040159_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A Spatial, Markovian Model of Rangeland Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) Population Dynamics: Do Long-Term Benefits Justify Suppression of Infestations? AN - 17984189; 5923325 AB - Using 49 yr of rangeland grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) survey data for Wyoming digitized into a spatially explicit format, we constructed a two-state (infested or uninfested) Markov chain model to evaluate the probabilities of population changes between states at the scale of 1 km2. Our analyses revealed that only very limited areas of Wyoming are likely to support multiyear infestations of rangeland grasshoppers. Across the state, 91% of the land has a >50% probability of a transition from infested to uninfested conditions from one year to the next. Considering only the land that has ever been infested by grasshoppers, 55% of this area was found to have a >90% probability of becoming uninfested in the year after an infestation. The life expectancy of a grasshopper infestation in Wyoming is generally 1-2 yr, uninfested conditions are also unlikely to last. Of the land that has ever been infested, uninfested conditions are expected to persist for less than or equal to 10 yr on 36% of the area. Thus, rangeland grasshopper outbreaks are highly erratic events, with either infested or uninfested conditions lasting for short periods. Contrary to previous analyses at much coarser spatial scales, the probability of rangeland grasshopper infestations persisting for multiple years appears to be quite low. As such, for most of Wyoming there is little basis for prorating the benefits of control beyond the year of treatment. JF - Environmental Entomology AU - Zimmerman, K M AU - Lockwood, JA AU - Latchininsky, A V AD - Wyoming Department of Transportation, Information Technology Program, 5300 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82009, lockwood@uwyo.edu Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - Apr 2004 SP - 257 EP - 266 PB - Entomological Society of America VL - 33 IS - 2 SN - 0046-225X, 0046-225X KW - Markovian Model KW - Orthoptera KW - Grasshoppers KW - Entomology Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - USA, Wyoming KW - Pest outbreaks KW - Population dynamics KW - Models KW - Rangelands KW - Acrididae KW - Z 05205:Populations & general ecology KW - D 04659:Insects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17984189?accountid=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=Environmental+Entomology&rft.atitle=A+Spatial%2C+Markovian+Model+of+Rangeland+Grasshopper+%28Orthoptera%3A+Acrididae%29+Population+Dynamics%3A+Do+Long-Term+Benefits+Justify+Suppression+of+Infestations%3F&rft.au=Zimmerman%2C+K+M%3BLockwood%2C+JA%3BLatchininsky%2C+A+V&rft.aulast=Zimmerman&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=257&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Entomology&rft.issn=0046225X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1043%2F0046-225X%282004%29033%280257%3AASMMOR%292.0.CO%3B2 L2 - http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0046-225X&volume=33&page=257 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Acrididae; USA, Wyoming; Models; Population dynamics; Rangelands; Pest outbreaks DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1043/0046-225X(2004)033(0257:ASMMOR)2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stratigraphy and paleoecology of the middle Pierre Shale along the Missouri River (Central South Dakota) AN - 17098465; 6727370 AB - A study of the stratigraphy of the middle Pierre Shale was undertaken, concentrating on two sections located along the eastern side of the Missouri River, in the vicinity of Fort Thompson. The members of the Pierre Shale represented within these sections are, from oldest to youngest, the Gregory, Crow Creek, DeGrey and Verendrye. Micropaleontologic samples were analyzed with factor analysis performed to classify the assemblages. Four foraminiferal biofacies are recognized: two predominantly agglutinated, Boreal in origin and indicative of cooler, less oxygenated marine conditions, one shallower and the other deeper; one composed of calcareous benthic foraminifera, Tethyan in origin, indicative of warmer, more oxygenated and shallower waters; and a fourth, that is interpreted as a mixed assemblage, transitional between the others. super(87)Sr/ super(86)Sr age analysis yielded twelve useable results. Samples from near the Baculites compressus biozone gave an age of approximately 72.43 +/- 2 Ma, a number relatively close to Obradovich's 1993 time scale super(40)Ar/ super(39)Ar value for this horizon of 73.35 +/- 0.39 Ma. An average 87Sr/86Sr date of 72.41 Ma +/- 2 Ma was determined from fossil shell at a significant paleontologic find - the globular-toothed mosasaur, Globidens sp. More equivocal dates of 74.58, 74.63 and 75.09 +/- 2 Ma were determined for the basal Crow Creek Member, a calcareous sandy siltstone within the upper Gregory Member and the B. gregoryensis biozone located at the base of the section, respectively. Based on the data from this study, the Crow Creek Member is interpreted as the result of the Bearpaw transgression (TST) and the DeGrey/Verendrye Member's boundary is a maximum flooding surface. The Verendrye Member is interpreted as an HST; the basal Gregory Member is interpreted as an HST but part of the regressive pulse of the Claggett depositional cycle. A preliminary correlation with the eustatic record from the late-K coastal plain of New Jersey places the basal Crow Creek unconformity coincident with an unconformable bounded surface at the base of the Marshalltown Formation linked to Haq's UZA-4.4 onlap cycle. A distinct, calcareous sandy siltstone unit in the upper Gregory Member is suggested to represent a storm-dominated deposit or, perhaps, a tsunamtite resulting from the approximately coeval Manson Impact. JF - Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science AU - Hanczaryk, P A AU - Gallagher, W B AD - New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Materials, Trenton, NJ 08625, USA Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - Apr 2004 SP - 305 EP - 306 PB - South Dakota Academy of Sciences, South Dakota State University Box 2140B, NPB 138 Brookings SD 57007-1696 USA VL - 83 SN - 0096-378X, 0096-378X KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Coastal Plains KW - Palaeo studies KW - Streams KW - Strontium isotopes KW - Foraminifera KW - Siltstone KW - USA, Pierre Shale KW - USA, Delaware, Marshalltown Formation KW - Hydrologic Data KW - USA, South Dakota KW - Rivers KW - USA, Missouri R. KW - Fossil Foraminifera KW - Bases KW - Stratigraphy KW - Transgressions KW - Factor Analysis KW - Eustatic changes KW - Tethys Sea KW - Shales KW - ANW, USA, New Jersey KW - Chronostratigraphy KW - Boundaries KW - Flooding KW - Sedimentary rocks KW - USA, Montana, Crow Creek KW - Baculites KW - Q2 09273:Palaeontology KW - SW 6050:Rock mechanics and geology KW - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes KW - Q1 08187:Palaeontology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17098465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+South+Dakota+Academy+of+Science&rft.atitle=Stratigraphy+and+paleoecology+of+the+middle+Pierre+Shale+along+the+Missouri+River+%28Central+South+Dakota%29&rft.au=Hanczaryk%2C+P+A%3BGallagher%2C+W+B&rft.aulast=Hanczaryk&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=&rft.spage=305&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+South+Dakota+Academy+of+Science&rft.issn=0096378X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Siltstone; Palaeo studies; Chronostratigraphy; Fossil Foraminifera; Sedimentary rocks; Stratigraphy; Transgressions; Strontium isotopes; Eustatic changes; Foraminifera; Rivers; Shales; Coastal Plains; Flooding; Boundaries; Bases; Hydrologic Data; Streams; Factor Analysis; Baculites; USA, South Dakota; Tethys Sea; USA, Pierre Shale; USA, Missouri R.; ANW, USA, New Jersey; USA, Montana, Crow Creek; USA, Delaware, Marshalltown Formation ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 15224895; 10714 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15224895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36381513; 10703-040148_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379623; 10703-040148_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379392; 10703-040148_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36379123; 10703-040148_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378818; 10703-040148_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - TRANSBAY TERMINAL/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION/REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378642; 10703-040148_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multimodal terminal on the site of the present Transbay Terminal and other transportation improvements and associated developments in the city of San Francisco and San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California is proposed. In addition to the terminal, the project would include and extension of the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Forth and Townsend streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new terminal and establishment of a redevelopment area plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly owned land in the vicinity of the new terminal. The existing Tranbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current seismic safety or space utilization standards. In addition to the No Action Alternative, this final EIS addresses two alternatives with respect to the terminal, two alternatives with respect to the Caltrain extension, and two alternatives with respect to the Transbay redevelopment plan. Under the full-build alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 7.6 million square feet of residential, office, retail, and hotel space, including 5.6 million square feet of residential development within 4,700 units, 1.2 million square feet of office space, 475,000 square feet of hotel development, and 355,000 square feet of retail space. Under the reduced scope alternative, the Transbay redevelopment plan alternatives would result in the construction of 4.7 million square feet of residential, retail, and hotel space, including 4.1 million square feet of residential development within 3,400 units, 350,000 square feet of hotel development, and 260,000 square feet of retail space. Under the locally preferred alternative, the combined estimated cost of the Transbay Terminal and the Caltrain extension is $1.106 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The modernization of the terminal facility would not only provide for a more adequate facility that would meet seismic standards, but would also provide the opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that include both market-rate and affordable housing and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use, and improvements in regional air quality would be expected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Numerous residences and businesses would be displaced. Demolition of the existing terminal would result in the loss of a structure eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge. Up to 13 other historically significant buildings that contribute to downtown historic districts would be affected. Traffic levels would increase significantly at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project, and project facilities would displace parking spaces in the area. Wind velocities would exceed city standards in portions of the redevelopment area. Vibration impacts would occur in the vicinity of four buildings due to operation of the Caltrain extension. Up to seven hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. 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(e)), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 03-0088D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040148, Volume I--540 pages, Volume 2--267 pages, Volume 3--422 pages, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Parking KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Underground Structures KW - Urban Development KW - Urban Renewal KW - California KW - Federal Transit Laws, Funding KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+AND+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TRANSBAY+TERMINAL%2FCALTRAIN+DOWNTOWN+EXTENSION%2FREDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT+IN+THE+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+SAN+MATEO+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 Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 18/151, CTH PD T0 USH 12 [AND]US HIGHWAY 12/14, USH 14 TO TODD DRIVE, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US HIGHWAY 18/151, CTH PD T0 USH 12 [AND]US HIGHWAY 12/14, USH 14 TO TODD DRIVE, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 36352854; 10694-040139_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of road transportation improvements within the US 151/Verona Road and US 12/14 )Beltline) corridors in the vicinity of Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin is proposed. The proposed project would have three components, as follows: 1) the improvement of US 151/Verona Road from US 12/14 to County Trunk Highway PD; 2) the improvement of US 12/14 (Beltline) from US 14 to US 151; and 3) the improvement of US 12/14 crossings, including interchanges and grade separation structures, between US 14 and Todd Drive. Alternatives considered for the US 151/Verona Road corridor include construction of an urban roadway and construction of a freeway. Alternatives considered for the US 12/14 (Beltline) corridor include a No-Build Alternative, construction of auxiliary lanes with ramp meters and capacity expansion including auxiliary lanes and ramp meters. The crossing improvement component would incorporate nine interchanges and four grade separation structures. Respective costs for the US 151 alternatives, the Beltline alternatives, and the crossings alternative are estimated to range from $60 million to $140 million, $18 million to $26.5 million, and $300,000 to $8.7 million. The range for the crossings alternative represent the cost of the least costly interchange project and the cost for the most costly interchange project. Total cost for the interchange component, if all interchanges were provided, is estimated at $36.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed long-term improvements would serve this portion of the Madison metropolitan area and the state backbone system for decades. The project would enhance the mobility of both motorized and, due to the provision of bicycle/pedestrian lanes, nonmotorized travel in the US 151 and US 12/14 corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 10.6 to 21.9 acres of new rights-of-way for the US 151 alternatives would result in displacement of 21 to 44 residential and six to 33 commercial units. Development of up to 11.9 acres of rights-of-way for the crossing alternatives would result in the displacement of up to five commercial units. The cohesion of several neighborhoods would be affected somewhat, and impacts to minority and low-income populations would be disproportionate. Both US 151 alternatives would displace Madison parklands and the corridor contains 27 hazardous materials sites. The US 12/14 corridor contains three hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040139, Volume 1--498 pages and maps, Volume 2--217 pages and maps, March 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WIS-EIS-04-01-D KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+18%2F151%2C+CTH+PD+T0+USH+12+US+HIGHWAY+12%2F14%2C+USH+14+TO+TODD+DRIVE%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+18%2F151%2C+CTH+PD+T0+USH+12+US+HIGHWAY+12%2F14%2C+USH+14+TO+TODD+DRIVE%2C+DANE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 18/151, CTH PD T0 USH 12 [AND]US HIGHWAY 12/14, USH 14 TO TODD DRIVE, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 15229593; 10694 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of road transportation improvements within the US 151/Verona Road and US 12/14 )Beltline) corridors in the vicinity of Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin is proposed. The proposed project would have three components, as follows: 1) the improvement of US 151/Verona Road from US 12/14 to County Trunk Highway PD; 2) the improvement of US 12/14 (Beltline) from US 14 to US 151; and 3) the improvement of US 12/14 crossings, including interchanges and grade separation structures, between US 14 and Todd Drive. Alternatives considered for the US 151/Verona Road corridor include construction of an urban roadway and construction of a freeway. Alternatives considered for the US 12/14 (Beltline) corridor include a No-Build Alternative, construction of auxiliary lanes with ramp meters and capacity expansion including auxiliary lanes and ramp meters. The crossing improvement component would incorporate nine interchanges and four grade separation structures. Respective costs for the US 151 alternatives, the Beltline alternatives, and the crossings alternative are estimated to range from $60 million to $140 million, $18 million to $26.5 million, and $300,000 to $8.7 million. The range for the crossings alternative represent the cost of the least costly interchange project and the cost for the most costly interchange project. Total cost for the interchange component, if all interchanges were provided, is estimated at $36.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed long-term improvements would serve this portion of the Madison metropolitan area and the state backbone system for decades. The project would enhance the mobility of both motorized and, due to the provision of bicycle/pedestrian lanes, nonmotorized travel in the US 151 and US 12/14 corridors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 10.6 to 21.9 acres of new rights-of-way for the US 151 alternatives would result in displacement of 21 to 44 residential and six to 33 commercial units. Development of up to 11.9 acres of rights-of-way for the crossing alternatives would result in the displacement of up to five commercial units. The cohesion of several neighborhoods would be affected somewhat, and impacts to minority and low-income populations would be disproportionate. Both US 151 alternatives would displace Madison parklands and the corridor contains 27 hazardous materials sites. The US 12/14 corridor contains three hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040139, Volume 1--498 pages and maps, Volume 2--217 pages and maps, March 25, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WIS-EIS-04-01-D KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15229593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+18%2F151%2C+CTH+PD+T0+USH+12+US+HIGHWAY+12%2F14%2C+USH+14+TO+TODD+DRIVE%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+18%2F151%2C+CTH+PD+T0+USH+12+US+HIGHWAY+12%2F14%2C+USH+14+TO+TODD+DRIVE%2C+DANE+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439333; 10690 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16.3-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system from just south of the future BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont to the cities of ilpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, California are proposed. The project area, known as the Silivon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, 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, encompassing approximately 100 square miles. The corridor suffers from extreme traffic congestion and the attendant delays in travel time and air quality impacts. The proposed BART extension would include seven stations at the outset and one additional station in the future, along the alignment and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard in San Jose/Santa Clara. The extension would lie within the Union Pacific Railroad San Jose Branch rights-of-way, now owned by the Valley Transportation Authority. The extension would run between the Warms Spring Station and Santa Clara Street in San Jose, continuing in a subway under public and private property through east and downtown San Jose, and terminate at-grade near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. Stations would be provided at Calaveras Boulevard, between the Montague Expressway and Capitol Avenue, at Verryessa Road, at 28th Street between East Julian and East Santa Clara streets, at East Santa Clara Street between Fourth and Seventh streets, at West Santa Clara Street between First Street and Almaden Avenue, south of and parallel to West Santa Clara Street between Autumn and White streets, at Benton Street and Broad Road between El Camino Real and Coleman Avenue. The station at Calaveras Boulevard would be deferred until a future date. Service for the BAR extension could begin in 2013 if funding becomes available. In addition to the proposed BART Alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, a New Starts Baseline Alternative, and two Minimum Operating Segment scenarios under the BART Alternative. Cost of the BART extension alternative is estimated at $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BART system extension would improve public transit service in the corridor, increasing transit ridership and thereby reducing congestion on highways and local roads. Severe congestion on Interstate 880 (I-880) and I-680 between Alameda County and Santa Clara County would be enhanced. Access would improve throughout the San Francisco Bay region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, Central Valley, and Silicon Valley. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected raid transit services between the BART system in Fremont and the light rail transit and Caltrain in Silicon Valley. Modal options in the corridor would be expanded significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the extension would result in the displacement of 46 to 101 businesses, one to five residences, 400 flea market stalls, 1,025 storage tenants, two ad signs, and one utility facility. The project would encroach somewhat into the 100-year floodplain and affect less than two acres of wetlands, 15 acres of habitat for the federally protected Congdon's tarplant and 11.4 acres for the federally protected burrowing owl. Loss of 2.6 acres of Central Coast Cottonwood Sycamore could affect the federally protected several other special status species. Loss of grassland could impact loggerhead shrike. A small strip of dedicated parkland would be lost. Eight historic and prehistoric sites would lie within the impact area. The system would traverse and area affected by seismic activity. Construction workers would encounter 21 hazardous materials sites. Train operation would result in noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards at numerous sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040134, 1,417 pages, March 19, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36351350; 10690-040134_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16.3-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system from just south of the future BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont to the cities of ilpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, California are proposed. The project area, known as the Silivon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, 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, encompassing approximately 100 square miles. The corridor suffers from extreme traffic congestion and the attendant delays in travel time and air quality impacts. The proposed BART extension would include seven stations at the outset and one additional station in the future, along the alignment and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard in San Jose/Santa Clara. The extension would lie within the Union Pacific Railroad San Jose Branch rights-of-way, now owned by the Valley Transportation Authority. The extension would run between the Warms Spring Station and Santa Clara Street in San Jose, continuing in a subway under public and private property through east and downtown San Jose, and terminate at-grade near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. Stations would be provided at Calaveras Boulevard, between the Montague Expressway and Capitol Avenue, at Verryessa Road, at 28th Street between East Julian and East Santa Clara streets, at East Santa Clara Street between Fourth and Seventh streets, at West Santa Clara Street between First Street and Almaden Avenue, south of and parallel to West Santa Clara Street between Autumn and White streets, at Benton Street and Broad Road between El Camino Real and Coleman Avenue. The station at Calaveras Boulevard would be deferred until a future date. Service for the BAR extension could begin in 2013 if funding becomes available. In addition to the proposed BART Alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, a New Starts Baseline Alternative, and two Minimum Operating Segment scenarios under the BART Alternative. Cost of the BART extension alternative is estimated at $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BART system extension would improve public transit service in the corridor, increasing transit ridership and thereby reducing congestion on highways and local roads. Severe congestion on Interstate 880 (I-880) and I-680 between Alameda County and Santa Clara County would be enhanced. Access would improve throughout the San Francisco Bay region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, Central Valley, and Silicon Valley. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected raid transit services between the BART system in Fremont and the light rail transit and Caltrain in Silicon Valley. Modal options in the corridor would be expanded significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the extension would result in the displacement of 46 to 101 businesses, one to five residences, 400 flea market stalls, 1,025 storage tenants, two ad signs, and one utility facility. The project would encroach somewhat into the 100-year floodplain and affect less than two acres of wetlands, 15 acres of habitat for the federally protected Congdon's tarplant and 11.4 acres for the federally protected burrowing owl. Loss of 2.6 acres of Central Coast Cottonwood Sycamore could affect the federally protected several other special status species. Loss of grassland could impact loggerhead shrike. A small strip of dedicated parkland would be lost. Eight historic and prehistoric sites would lie within the impact area. The system would traverse and area affected by seismic activity. Construction workers would encounter 21 hazardous materials sites. Train operation would result in noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards at numerous sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040134, 1,417 pages, March 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUNWAY 5-23 SAFETY AREA CONSTRUCTION AT GROTON-NEW LONDON AIRPORT, TOWN OF GROTON, CONNECTICUT. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUNWAY 5-23 SAFETY AREA CONSTRUCTION AT GROTON-NEW LONDON AIRPORT, TOWN OF GROTON, CONNECTICUT. AN - 36350961; 10679-040122_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Runway 5-23 runway safety area at Groton-New London Airport in the town of Groton, Connecticut is proposed to allow the facility to meet federal design standards. The airport, which is owned and operated by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, is a commercial service facility. Runway 5-23, the airport's primary runway, is 5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide, running in a northeast-southeast direction. Currently, the safety area associated with the runway does not meet federal standards. The safety area consists of the ground area that surrounds a runway, an area that must be suitable to support aircraft and emergency vehicles in the event of an aircraft accident or incident. The length and width of Runway 5-23 would not change. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coastal zone resources, floodplain encroachment, wetland losses, water quality, and habitat for endangered and threatened species. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The Full-Build Alternative would involve construction of a full safety area, while the Modified-Build Alternative would involve lesser improvements, including the potential construction of an aircraft arresting system. The Full-Build Alternative would expand the safety area at each end of the runway to 1,000 feet by 500 feet. In lieu of developing a full safety area, the Modified-Build Alternative could include the construction of an engineered materials arresting system (EMAS) to arrest aircraft movements during overruns. An EMAS is a paved area beyond the runway with a soft concrete bed that is crushed under the weight of the aircraft, hence, retards the movement of the craft. The Modified-Build Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvement of the safety area would allow the airport to meet federal standards and enhance the safety of passengers using the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Full-Build Alternative would require filling approximately 5.1 acres behind a revetment wall constructed in the Poquonnock River, reducing the overall width of the river by two-thirds and potentially altering tidal flows, increasing erosion and scour, and exacerbating upstream flooding during major storm events. This alternative would also impact 4.7 acres of tidal wetlands, 8.9 acres of open water, 9.7 acres of upland habitat, and habitat for 10 state-listed protected bird species and two federally protected species of sea turtles. The Modified-Build Alternative would require filling of 0.01 acre of a small creek and 1.2 acres of tidal wetlands in the vicinity of Baker Cove, disturb 9.7 acres of upland habitat, and affect habitat for 10 state-listed protected bird species. Either alternative would involve grading and other earthwork activities below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain and would increase the extent of impervious surface and, hence, increase runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982,as amended (P.L. 97-248). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0205D, Volume 26, number 2. JF - EPA number: 040122, 297 pages and maps, March 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Connecticut KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUNWAY+5-23+SAFETY+AREA+CONSTRUCTION+AT+GROTON-NEW+LONDON+AIRPORT%2C+TOWN+OF+GROTON%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=RUNWAY+5-23+SAFETY+AREA+CONSTRUCTION+AT+GROTON-NEW+LONDON+AIRPORT%2C+TOWN+OF+GROTON%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Wethersfield, Connecticut; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 9 (FRISCO TO BRECKENRIDGE), SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36436925; 10671 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of nine miles of State Highway (SH) 9 between the towns of Frisco and Breckenridge in Summit County, Colorado is proposed. The existing two-lane roadway is currently operating at capacity. Year 2020 traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent. Summit County population levels in 2000 represent a total growth 82.8 percent over 1990 figures. Population growth in Summit County has been greater than the state and national averages and this trend is expected to continue. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would include the redesignation of SH 9 from Main Street westward to Park Avenue in the town of Breckenridge. Action Alternative 1 would involve provision of a four-lane highway with either a depressed, rural median, a raised median, or a barrier-protected median. Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 in its physical characteristics, though the use of the outside lane would be limited to buses and carpools during peak hours. Alternative 3 would also be identical to Alternative 1, though the width of the median and shoulders would be reduced. Alternative 4 would be similar to the No Action Alternative, though some additional acceleration and deceleration lanes would be provided. All build alternatives include transportation demand management elements, which include traffic signals to give priority to buses, bus stop amenities, and partial funding of a transportation management organization and its programs. Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve transportation along SH 9 by expanding the highway to four lanes, decreasing travel time, improving safety, and supporting travel needs of local and regional motorists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the development of a maximum of 35 acres of land, including. Widening the highway would result in additional traffic-related noise impacts with respect to sensitive residential receptors, and the increased capacity of the facility would induce population growth along the corridor and elsewhere in the area. Certain historic and recreational sites, including parks and open space areas, would be affected by rights-of-way development 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.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0323D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040117, Final EIS--167 pages, Appendices--396 pages and maps, March 10, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 9 (FRISCO TO BRECKENRIDGE), SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 9 (FRISCO TO BRECKENRIDGE), SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36350246; 10671-040117_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of nine miles of State Highway (SH) 9 between the towns of Frisco and Breckenridge in Summit County, Colorado is proposed. The existing two-lane roadway is currently operating at capacity. Year 2020 traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent. Summit County population levels in 2000 represent a total growth 82.8 percent over 1990 figures. Population growth in Summit County has been greater than the state and national averages and this trend is expected to continue. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would include the redesignation of SH 9 from Main Street westward to Park Avenue in the town of Breckenridge. Action Alternative 1 would involve provision of a four-lane highway with either a depressed, rural median, a raised median, or a barrier-protected median. Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 in its physical characteristics, though the use of the outside lane would be limited to buses and carpools during peak hours. Alternative 3 would also be identical to Alternative 1, though the width of the median and shoulders would be reduced. Alternative 4 would be similar to the No Action Alternative, though some additional acceleration and deceleration lanes would be provided. All build alternatives include transportation demand management elements, which include traffic signals to give priority to buses, bus stop amenities, and partial funding of a transportation management organization and its programs. Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve transportation along SH 9 by expanding the highway to four lanes, decreasing travel time, improving safety, and supporting travel needs of local and regional motorists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the development of a maximum of 35 acres of land, including. Widening the highway would result in additional traffic-related noise impacts with respect to sensitive residential receptors, and the increased capacity of the facility would induce population growth along the corridor and elsewhere in the area. Certain historic and recreational sites, including parks and open space areas, would be affected by rights-of-way development 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.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0323D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040117, Final EIS--167 pages, Appendices--396 pages and maps, March 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 9 (FRISCO TO BRECKENRIDGE), SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 9 (FRISCO TO BRECKENRIDGE), SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36350111; 10671-040117_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of nine miles of State Highway (SH) 9 between the towns of Frisco and Breckenridge in Summit County, Colorado is proposed. The existing two-lane roadway is currently operating at capacity. Year 2020 traffic volumes are expected to increase by 50 percent. Summit County population levels in 2000 represent a total growth 82.8 percent over 1990 figures. Population growth in Summit County has been greater than the state and national averages and this trend is expected to continue. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would include the redesignation of SH 9 from Main Street westward to Park Avenue in the town of Breckenridge. Action Alternative 1 would involve provision of a four-lane highway with either a depressed, rural median, a raised median, or a barrier-protected median. Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 in its physical characteristics, though the use of the outside lane would be limited to buses and carpools during peak hours. Alternative 3 would also be identical to Alternative 1, though the width of the median and shoulders would be reduced. Alternative 4 would be similar to the No Action Alternative, though some additional acceleration and deceleration lanes would be provided. All build alternatives include transportation demand management elements, which include traffic signals to give priority to buses, bus stop amenities, and partial funding of a transportation management organization and its programs. Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve transportation along SH 9 by expanding the highway to four lanes, decreasing travel time, improving safety, and supporting travel needs of local and regional motorists. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the development of a maximum of 35 acres of land, including. Widening the highway would result in additional traffic-related noise impacts with respect to sensitive residential receptors, and the increased capacity of the facility would induce population growth along the corridor and elsewhere in the area. Certain historic and recreational sites, including parks and open space areas, would be affected by rights-of-way development 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.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0323D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040117, Final EIS--167 pages, Appendices--396 pages and maps, March 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+9+%28FRISCO+TO+BRECKENRIDGE%29%2C+SUMMIT+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. HIGHWAY 231, DUBOIS COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36435296; 10666 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 231 from Interstate 64 II-64) to State Road (SR) 56 in Haysville, Dubois County, Indiana is proposed. US 231 extends 304 miles fro, US 60 in Owensboro, Kentucky, north through Indiana to US 41 near the Illinois border. The facility is a component of the National Highway System and the National Truck Network and is designated as a Regional Mobility Corridor and a Commerce Corridor in the Indiana Department of Transportation's 2000-2005 Long Range Plan. Approximately 12 miles of existing US 231 through Dubois County is a rural two-lane roadway, becoming a three- or four-lane highway through Huntingburg and Hasper and serving as a north-south arterial dividing both communities. Traffic flow in Huntingburg is affected by delays at an at-grade rail crossing. In Jasper, US 231 makes two right-angle turns, both of which are characterized by substandard corner radii, making negotiation of these turns difficult for larger vehicles. Capacity and level of service along the study corridor are substandard, and crash and injury rates are high. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and two alignment alternatives, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives would result in the construction of a four-lane facility within rural portions of the corridor and a two-lane facility through Haysville, with access provided via at-grade intersections. The eastern build alternative would provide for an eastern alignment, which would extend 21.7 miles that would bypass both Huntingburg and Jasper. Intersections would be provided at five cross-roads, and an overpass would be provided at Dubois Road. A frontage road would be provided at County Road 150W. The western build alignment, which would extend 21.6 miles, would provide for a western bypass of the two towns. Intersections would be provided at 17 cross-roads, and eight cross roads would be severed, with access provided via local service roads. Frontage roads would be provided to allow local access for four roads. Cost of the eastern and western alternatives are estimated at $133.6 million and $134.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would separate through and local traffic in the vicinity of Huntingburg and Jasper, improving traffic flow and enhancing safety for local and long-distance travelers and freight carriers. Highway capacity would increase significantly, accommodating projected increases in traffic volumes through the design year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 414 to 602 acres of farmland, 15.5 to 22.4 acres of wetland, 78.6 to 143 acres of upland forest, 34 to 61 residences and one to three businesses. Proximity impacts would affect the Timberline neighborhood under the eastern alternative and the Green Meadows Estates neighborhood under the western alternative. The eastern alternative would degrade visual aesthetics in the vicinity of State Highway Bridge 162, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. An archaeological survey will be conducted once a selected alternative has been identified. Both build alternatives would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of seven residences south of Haysville; one additional residence would be affected by noise under the western alternative. In total, 23 to 25 sensitive receptor sites would be affected by excessive noise. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040112, 521 pages and maps, March 9, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-04-03-D KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Indiana KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+HIGHWAY+231%2C+DUBOIS+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=U.S.+HIGHWAY+231%2C+DUBOIS+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. HIGHWAY 231, DUBOIS COUNTY, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. HIGHWAY 231, DUBOIS COUNTY, INDIANA. AN - 36350551; 10666-040112_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 231 from Interstate 64 II-64) to State Road (SR) 56 in Haysville, Dubois County, Indiana is proposed. US 231 extends 304 miles fro, US 60 in Owensboro, Kentucky, north through Indiana to US 41 near the Illinois border. The facility is a component of the National Highway System and the National Truck Network and is designated as a Regional Mobility Corridor and a Commerce Corridor in the Indiana Department of Transportation's 2000-2005 Long Range Plan. Approximately 12 miles of existing US 231 through Dubois County is a rural two-lane roadway, becoming a three- or four-lane highway through Huntingburg and Hasper and serving as a north-south arterial dividing both communities. Traffic flow in Huntingburg is affected by delays at an at-grade rail crossing. In Jasper, US 231 makes two right-angle turns, both of which are characterized by substandard corner radii, making negotiation of these turns difficult for larger vehicles. Capacity and level of service along the study corridor are substandard, and crash and injury rates are high. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and two alignment alternatives, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives would result in the construction of a four-lane facility within rural portions of the corridor and a two-lane facility through Haysville, with access provided via at-grade intersections. The eastern build alternative would provide for an eastern alignment, which would extend 21.7 miles that would bypass both Huntingburg and Jasper. Intersections would be provided at five cross-roads, and an overpass would be provided at Dubois Road. A frontage road would be provided at County Road 150W. The western build alignment, which would extend 21.6 miles, would provide for a western bypass of the two towns. Intersections would be provided at 17 cross-roads, and eight cross roads would be severed, with access provided via local service roads. Frontage roads would be provided to allow local access for four roads. Cost of the eastern and western alternatives are estimated at $133.6 million and $134.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would separate through and local traffic in the vicinity of Huntingburg and Jasper, improving traffic flow and enhancing safety for local and long-distance travelers and freight carriers. Highway capacity would increase significantly, accommodating projected increases in traffic volumes through the design year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 414 to 602 acres of farmland, 15.5 to 22.4 acres of wetland, 78.6 to 143 acres of upland forest, 34 to 61 residences and one to three businesses. Proximity impacts would affect the Timberline neighborhood under the eastern alternative and the Green Meadows Estates neighborhood under the western alternative. The eastern alternative would degrade visual aesthetics in the vicinity of State Highway Bridge 162, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. An archaeological survey will be conducted once a selected alternative has been identified. Both build alternatives would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of seven residences south of Haysville; one additional residence would be affected by noise under the western alternative. In total, 23 to 25 sensitive receptor sites would be affected by excessive noise. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040112, 521 pages and maps, March 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-04-03-D KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Indiana KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+HIGHWAY+231%2C+DUBOIS+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=U.S.+HIGHWAY+231%2C+DUBOIS+COUNTY%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-159 MISSOURI RIVER CROSSING, RICHARDSON COUNTY, NEBRASKA TO HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US-159 MISSOURI RIVER CROSSING, RICHARDSON COUNTY, NEBRASKA TO HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 36356284; 10663-040109_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Missouri River Bridge at Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. The roadway is designated as US 159 and connects Holt County, Missouri and Richardson County, Nebraska. The study corridor extends from a point on existing US 159 approximately 1.6 miles west of the existing US 159 crossing of the Missouri River to a point on existing US 159 in Missouri, approximately 3.3 miles east of the river. The bridge constitutes an important regional crossing of the Missouri River, with the nearest crossings lying 27 miles upstream at Brownville, Nebraska and 49 miles downstream St. Joseph, Missouri. The existing bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its failure to meet current standards for horizontal and vertical clearance and its age. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative and four feasible build alternatives. The alternative corridors extend from 1.13 miles to 5.33 miles. Build Alternative 1 would provide a bridge approximately 220 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Alternative 2 would provide a bridge approximately 625 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Alternative 3 would provide a bypass around the south of Rulo. Also under consideration is an alternative that would improve the existing bridge by reconstruction of the structure to allow it to meet modern horizontal and vertical clearance requirements and load rating and geometric standards. Depending on the alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges from $23.1 million to $36.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern, safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and cost-effective highway crossing of the Missouri River at Rulo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would involve replacement of the existing bridge, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and one or two other historic structures could be affected. Bridge construction could affect habitat for the federally protected pallid and lake sturgeon and bald eagle. The project would displace up to 8.96 acres of wetlands in Missouri and 1.95 acres in Nebraska, 53.8 acres of prime farmland in Missouri and 29.9 acres in Nebraska, and eight residences in Nebraska. Minor to major floodplain encroachments would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040109, 301 pages and maps, March 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NE-EIS-04-02-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri KW - Nebraska KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-159+MISSOURI+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+RICHARDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA+TO+HOLT+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=US-159+MISSOURI+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+RICHARDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA+TO+HOLT+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lincoln, Nebraska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US-159 MISSOURI RIVER CROSSING, RICHARDSON COUNTY, NEBRASKA TO HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 16357110; 10663 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or replacement of the Missouri River Bridge at Rulo, Nebraska is proposed. The roadway is designated as US 159 and connects Holt County, Missouri and Richardson County, Nebraska. The study corridor extends from a point on existing US 159 approximately 1.6 miles west of the existing US 159 crossing of the Missouri River to a point on existing US 159 in Missouri, approximately 3.3 miles east of the river. The bridge constitutes an important regional crossing of the Missouri River, with the nearest crossings lying 27 miles upstream at Brownville, Nebraska and 49 miles downstream St. Joseph, Missouri. The existing bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its failure to meet current standards for horizontal and vertical clearance and its age. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative and four feasible build alternatives. The alternative corridors extend from 1.13 miles to 5.33 miles. Build Alternative 1 would provide a bridge approximately 220 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Alternative 2 would provide a bridge approximately 625 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Alternative 3 would provide a bypass around the south of Rulo. Also under consideration is an alternative that would improve the existing bridge by reconstruction of the structure to allow it to meet modern horizontal and vertical clearance requirements and load rating and geometric standards. Depending on the alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges from $23.1 million to $36.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern, safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and cost-effective highway crossing of the Missouri River at Rulo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would involve replacement of the existing bridge, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and one or two other historic structures could be affected. Bridge construction could affect habitat for the federally protected pallid and lake sturgeon and bald eagle. The project would displace up to 8.96 acres of wetlands in Missouri and 1.95 acres in Nebraska, 53.8 acres of prime farmland in Missouri and 29.9 acres in Nebraska, and eight residences in Nebraska. Minor to major floodplain encroachments would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040109, 301 pages and maps, March 8, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NE-EIS-04-02-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri KW - Nebraska KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US-159+MISSOURI+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+RICHARDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA+TO+HOLT+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=US-159+MISSOURI+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+RICHARDSON+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA+TO+HOLT+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lincoln, Nebraska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36370932; 050283F-050098_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Runway 17/35 and related actions at Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed. Passenger and aircraft activity data examined during the preparation of the airport master plan update determined that aircraft operations are currently delayed an average of 10 minutes per operation these delays are forecast to increase to 19 minutes by 2010. Delays at the airport have been worsened by faster than predicted changes in the fleet mix from turboprop to regional jet aircraft. At their present lengths of 5,459 and 5,000 feet, respectively, secondary Runways 17-35 and 8-26 cannot regularly accommodate many of the departures by regional jets and narrow body aircraft. As a result, these runways are severely underused, increasing delays by focusing operations on the two primary runways. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1, the preferred alternative, would involve extension of Runway 17-35 by 640 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 6,500 feet. Taxiways parallel to the runway would be extended and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Navigational aids would be relocated as needed. Standard 1,000-foot runway safety areas would be constructed at the north and south ends of the runway. A portion of the existing airfield service road south of the runway would be relocated to be largely outside of the proposed runway safety area. Action Alternative 2 would extend Runway 17-35 by 1,140 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 7,000 feet. Alternative would accommodate the obstruction to Runway 35 arrivals posed by certain large ships in the Delaware River Shipping Channel by displacing the Runway 35 landing threshold by 1,444 feet to the north. Alternative 2 would also provide for a 500-foot displacement of the threshold on the north (runway 17) end to prevent obstruction of flight paths by vehicles on Interstate 95 (I-95). Parallel taxiways would be extended, and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Costs of action alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $36.0 million and $56.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The runway extension and related actions would reduce current and projected airfield delays at the airport. Reduced congestion at the airport would also increase aircraft operations safety and abate noise emissions somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, a portion of the Economy Parking Lot north of the runway would be displaced; lost parking spaces would be replaced east and west of the runway. A portion of State Route (SR) 291 between I-95 Ramp F and Island Avenue would be closed and the Exxon gas station at the intersection of Island Avenue and SR 291 would be displaced to meet runway operation safety rules. A portion of Church Creek would be converted from an open channel to a culvert, and adjustments to navigational aids and lighting systems would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050098, Volume 1--543 pages, March 4, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Navigation KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Pennsylvania KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 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/36370932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 16356264; 11436 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Runway 17/35 and related actions at Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed. Passenger and aircraft activity data examined during the preparation of the airport master plan update determined that aircraft operations are currently delayed an average of 10 minutes per operation these delays are forecast to increase to 19 minutes by 2010. Delays at the airport have been worsened by faster than predicted changes in the fleet mix from turboprop to regional jet aircraft. At their present lengths of 5,459 and 5,000 feet, respectively, secondary Runways 17-35 and 8-26 cannot regularly accommodate many of the departures by regional jets and narrow body aircraft. As a result, these runways are severely underused, increasing delays by focusing operations on the two primary runways. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1, the preferred alternative, would involve extension of Runway 17-35 by 640 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 6,500 feet. Taxiways parallel to the runway would be extended and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Navigational aids would be relocated as needed. Standard 1,000-foot runway safety areas would be constructed at the north and south ends of the runway. A portion of the existing airfield service road south of the runway would be relocated to be largely outside of the proposed runway safety area. Action Alternative 2 would extend Runway 17-35 by 1,140 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 7,000 feet. Alternative would accommodate the obstruction to Runway 35 arrivals posed by certain large ships in the Delaware River Shipping Channel by displacing the Runway 35 landing threshold by 1,444 feet to the north. Alternative 2 would also provide for a 500-foot displacement of the threshold on the north (runway 17) end to prevent obstruction of flight paths by vehicles on Interstate 95 (I-95). Parallel taxiways would be extended, and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Costs of action alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $36.0 million and $56.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The runway extension and related actions would reduce current and projected airfield delays at the airport. Reduced congestion at the airport would also increase aircraft operations safety and abate noise emissions somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, a portion of the Economy Parking Lot north of the runway would be displaced; lost parking spaces would be replaced east and west of the runway. A portion of State Route (SR) 291 between I-95 Ramp F and Island Avenue would be closed and the Exxon gas station at the intersection of Island Avenue and SR 291 would be displaced to meet runway operation safety rules. A portion of Church Creek would be converted from an open channel to a culvert, and adjustments to navigational aids and lighting systems would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050098, Volume 1--543 pages, March 4, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Navigation KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Pennsylvania KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 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/16356264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bouguer gravity and magnetic anomalies associated with the Weaubleau-Osceola impact structure, Missouri AN - 51802738; 2004-068759 AB - Recent discovery of the Weaubleau-Osceola meteorite impact structure in southeastern St. Clair County, Missouri, has been confirmed by field and laboratory studies. This feature was first recognized from digital elevation models because of its distinctive circular drainage pattern: this pattern marks the location of a ring moat with an uplifted outer rim, marking the extent of the tectonic rim. The point-of-impact is marked by a 7-km diameter ring with nearly 400 m of uplift, located somewhat eccentrically to the larger structure. The center is approximately 3 km south of the village of Vista. Evidence for a meteoritic origin of the structure includes highly deformed carbonates that are overlain by undeformed but karstified polymict carbonate breccia. The upper part of this breccia is interpreted as a fall-back component, and it contains a large number of quartz grains and granules that have multiple directions of planar fractures and decorated shock lamellae. It also contains mixed conodont faunas of Early Ordovician and Early to Middle Mississippian ages. Shallow core drilling show that at approximately 220 ft (67 m) depth in the ring uplift, granite and carbonate breccia with possible melt material are encountered. Undeformed Pennsylvanian sediments partially cover this succession. To determine the three-dimensional extent of the structure, a gravity and magnetic analysis was conducted. The existing gravity data are sparse in St. Clair County, so we collected an additional 300 stations within and surrounding the structure. These data were processed into Bouguer gravity anomalies and merged with the existing data. The Bouguer gravity anomaly map indicates a complex pattern of high-frequency minima and maxima with two low-amplitude gravity minima at the suspected point of impact and to the northeast. A gravity maximum coincides with the ring uplift. A residual gravity anomaly map removes the regional northwest-trending anomalies to highlight the minima thought to be related to the impact site. Aeromagnetic data confirm the finding from the gravity data. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Stockdell, R Brian AU - Mickus, Kevin AU - Davis, George H AU - Evans, Kevin AU - Miller, James F AU - Rovey, Charles AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 18 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Mississippian KW - breccia KW - impact features KW - geophysical surveys KW - Paleozoic KW - Missouri KW - Carboniferous KW - magnetic anomalies KW - Weaubleau impact structure KW - Ordovician KW - gravity anomalies KW - surveys KW - Bouguer anomalies KW - impact craters KW - geomorphology KW - Saint Clair County Missouri KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51802738?accountid=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=Bouguer+gravity+and+magnetic+anomalies+associated+with+the+Weaubleau-Osceola+impact+structure%2C+Missouri&rft.au=Stockdell%2C+R+Brian%3BMickus%2C+Kevin%3BDavis%2C+George+H%3BEvans%2C+Kevin%3BMiller%2C+James+F%3BRovey%2C+Charles%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Stockdell&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&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, North-Central Section, 38th 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bouguer anomalies; breccia; Carboniferous; geomorphology; geophysical surveys; gravity anomalies; impact craters; impact features; magnetic anomalies; Mississippian; Missouri; Ordovician; Paleozoic; Saint Clair County Missouri; surveys; United States; Weaubleau impact structure ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shallow faulting on the southeastern margin of the Reelfoot Rift of western Tennessee AN - 51801977; 2004-068838 AB - Previous interpretation of Dow Chemical petroleum exploration seismic reflection data has shown faulted Precambrian through lower Tertiary strata along the southeastern margin of the Reelfoot Rift in western Tennessee. In this current study 120 wireline logs, from 300 foot deep North American Coal Company wells, are used to map the shallow structure above these deep faults in southern Livingston, Tipton, and northern Shelby Counties of southwestern Tennessee. Maps were drawn on the tops of the Eocene Cook Mountain and Memphis Sand. Three northeast-trending fault zones are identified. Reverse faulting of 25 meters or more and horsts are evident both from apparent displacement and repeated section in some wireline logs. Two of these fault zones were previously mapped in the Dow reflection data as flower structures in the deeper section. The third fault zone is similar in orientation and geometry to the other two but is east of the seismic reflection coverage. The westernmost fault zone extends south into Shelby County and probably continues under the Mississippi Alluvium into Arkansas. The middle of these fault zones appears to be the northward extension of the Memphis Fault, and the easternmost fault zone may be a northern extension of the Ellendale Fault. In addition to the northeast-trending faults, an east-trending down-to-the-north fault exists across southern Tipton County. All three of these northeast-trending fault zones appear to have generated some displacement of the Pliocene-Pleistocene Upland Gravel and thus have Quaternary activity. Microseismic activity is occurring on the basement faults along the southeastern margin of the Reelfoot Rift in Tipton County. Continuity of the deep seismogenic faults with the near-surface Quaternary faults along this rift margin has broad implications for seismic hazard assessment in western Tennessee and the metropolitan area of Memphis in particular. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Martin, Richard V AU - Van Arsdale, Roy B AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 46 EP - 47 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Reelfoot Rift KW - shallow depth KW - Shelby County Tennessee KW - Tipton County Tennessee KW - Tennessee KW - tectonics KW - western Tennessee KW - reverse faults KW - faults KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51801977?accountid=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=Shallow+faulting+on+the+southeastern+margin+of+the+Reelfoot+Rift+of+western+Tennessee&rft.au=Martin%2C+Richard+V%3BVan+Arsdale%2C+Roy+B%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Martin&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 38th 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - faults; Reelfoot Rift; reverse faults; shallow depth; Shelby County Tennessee; tectonics; Tennessee; Tipton County Tennessee; United States; western Tennessee ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Downhole geophysical logging for Quaternary mapping applied to hydrogeologic and environmental issues AN - 51801292; 2004-068825 AB - Natural gamma-ray logs are becoming an important source of semi-quantitative geologic data for improving the understanding of the regional and local glacial geology and its hydrogeological interpretation, particularly in areas of Illinois covered by thick drift and complex stratigraphy. For example, the Chicago metropolitan region has an increasing demand for water from glacial aquifers to supplement bedrock and surface water; aquifers around Peoria are discontinuous; and local contamination of the American Bottoms aquifer in East Saint Louis metropolitan area compromises an important regional aquifer. To accommodate the need for rapid collection of detailed data, the ISGS, using the Indiana Geological Survey program as a model, expanded its downhole, geophysical-logging program to log as many newly drilled wells and borings as practical. For detailed 3-D geologic mapping, gamma logs are compared with core, samples sets and lab data to correlate log patterns with sediment characteristics. As relationships are developed, logs can be used to 1) interpret variability and consistency within units, 2) discriminate between diamictons of similar texture, 3) identify gradational and abrupt contacts, and 4) distinguish sedimentary facies that comprise the complex glacial stratigraphy of Illinois. Wherever samples are collected at intervals during drilling, gamma logs provide a continuous record. Natural gamma logs confirm the depth and interval to be screened for piezometers in groundwater investigations and are also used to find thin, overlooked water-bearing units. Cross sections of multiple logs show possible continuity of units. Material type and to some extent mineralogy can be interpreted from continuous gamma logs. Lower counts per second (cps) are recorded for well-sorted quartzose sands and gravels, limestone and dolomite; relatively higher counts indicate finer material such as lake clays, clayey diamictons (tills and flows), and shale. Statistical analyses of material properties of twenty samples show that the gamma measurements (cps) correlate highly with texture. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Stohr, Christopher J AU - Curry, B Brandon AU - Dixon-Warren, Antigone B AU - Barnhardt, Michael L AU - Larson, David R AU - Phillips, Andrew C AU - Stumpf, Andrew J AU - Duval, Joseph S AU - Guttmann, Brent AU - Korth, Daniel AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 44 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - gamma-ray methods KW - Quaternary KW - Illinois KW - geophysical surveys KW - three-dimensional models KW - well-logging KW - mapping KW - downhole methods KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - Cenozoic KW - Chicago Illinois KW - surveys KW - applications KW - drilling KW - Cook County Illinois KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51801292?accountid=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=Downhole+geophysical+logging+for+Quaternary+mapping+applied+to+hydrogeologic+and+environmental+issues&rft.au=Stohr%2C+Christopher+J%3BCurry%2C+B+Brandon%3BDixon-Warren%2C+Antigone+B%3BBarnhardt%2C+Michael+L%3BLarson%2C+David+R%3BPhillips%2C+Andrew+C%3BStumpf%2C+Andrew+J%3BDuval%2C+Joseph+S%3BGuttmann%2C+Brent%3BKorth%2C+Daniel%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Stohr&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=44&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, 38th 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - applications; aquifers; Cenozoic; Chicago Illinois; Cook County Illinois; downhole methods; drilling; gamma-ray methods; geophysical surveys; ground water; hydrology; Illinois; mapping; Quaternary; surveys; three-dimensional models; United States; well-logging ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH MEDFORD INTERCHANGE PROJECT, INTERSTATE 5, MEDFORD, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH MEDFORD INTERCHANGE PROJECT, INTERSTATE 5, MEDFORD, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 36356068; 10654-040099_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the South Medford interchange on Interstate 5 (I-5) south of its current location at Barnett Road in Jackson County, Oregon is proposed. The currently congested interchange results in safety projects due to the mix of local and regional traffic, which affects not only I-5 access but also east-west traffic crossing the freeway. The new interchange, which would be located in southwest Medford, would bridge I-5 and include connecting streets to Barnett Road and Highway 99. The new facility would include travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaped areas and other roadway-related facilities. A No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as the Highland Alternative, would be located approximately 1,903 feet south of the existing interchange. The facility would include new streets connecting the interchange structure to Barnett Road at its intersection with Highland Drive and to Oregon 99 at its current intersection with Barfield Street and Belknap Road. The existing interchange would be decommissioned, with the ramps being removed and Barnett Road remaining as an overpass. Highland Drive would become a four-leg intersection through the addition of an approach for the interchange. A new connection would be added over the interchange between Barnett Road at Highland Dive and Highway 99. Three new bridges would be built across Bear Creek and another bridge across Larson Creek. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $52 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the interchange would reduce congestion, improve functionality of the junction, and improve safety. The project would also facilitate improvements to the capacity and functioning of the city's street system. Planned land uses and project growth patterns would be supported. The project would also improve connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of two to 32 residences and three to five businesses as well as parkland associated with Bear Creek Park, including 36.8 acres of vegetation. The interchange would increase pressure for conversion of residential land to commercial uses. Pedestrian movements across Highland Drive between the signalized intersections of Barnett Road and Siskiyou Boulevard could be impeded. Access to a commercial ice rink would be lost. Neighborhood cohesion would be affected due to increased traffic volume on the Highland Drive side of Bear Creek Park; this would also impede access to the park. The project would disproportionately affect elderly residents. One archaeological site and three historic sites would be affected. Noise levels would exceed federal standards for several sensitive receptors. Numerous bridge piers would be placed within the area floodplain, and a significant length of stream would be disturbed, potentially affecting the federal protected Coho salmon. Approximately one acre of wetland would be displaced. Three hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. Shrink-swell soils in the area could affect performance of the pavement and embankment structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 02-0078D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040099, 467 pages and maps, March 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+MEDFORD+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+5%2C+MEDFORD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+MEDFORD+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+5%2C+MEDFORD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters AN - 18035657; 6016363 AB - New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) test scores, measured by the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), were analyzed in order to assess the benefits of equipping safety belt systems with pretensioners and load limiters. Safety belt pretensioners retract the safety belt almost instantly in a crash to remove excess slack. They tie the occupant to the vehicle's deceleration early during the crash, reducing the peak load experienced by the occupant. Load limiters and other energy management systems allow safety belts to yield in a crash, preventing the shoulder belt from directing too much energy on the chest of the occupant. In NCAP tests, vehicles are crashed into a fixed barrier at 35 mph. During the test, instruments measure the accelerations of the head and chest, as well as the force on the legs of anthropomorphic dummies secured in the vehicle by safety belts. NCAP data from model year 1998 through 2001 cars and light trucks were examined. The combination of pretensioners and load limiters is estimated to reduce Head Injury Criterion (HIC) by 232, chest acceleration by an average of 6.6 g's, and chest deflection (displacement) by 10.6 mm, for drivers and right front passengers. The unit used to measure chest acceleration (g) is defined as a unit of force equal to the force exerted by gravity. All of these reductions are statistically significant. When looked at individually, pretensioners are more effective in reducing HIC scores for both drivers and right front passengers, as well as chest acceleration and chest deflection scores for drivers. Load limiters show greater reductions in chest acceleration and chest deflection scores for right front passengers. By contrast, in make-models for which neither load limiters nor pretensioners have been added, there is little change during 1998 to 2001 in HIC, chest acceleration, or chest deflection values in NCAP tests. JF - Traffic Injury Prevention AU - Walz, M AD - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 SP - 18 EP - 25 VL - 5 IS - 1 SN - 1538-9588, 1538-9588 KW - pretensioners and load limiters KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Seat belts KW - Motor vehicles KW - Impact analysis KW - Crashworthiness KW - Protective equipment KW - USA KW - Safety engineering KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18035657?accountid=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=Traffic+Injury+Prevention&rft.atitle=NCAP+Test+Improvements+with+Pretensioners+and+Load+Limiters&rft.au=Walz%2C+M&rft.aulast=Walz&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=18&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Traffic+Injury+Prevention&rft.issn=15389588&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - USA; Crashworthiness; Impact analysis; Motor vehicles; Seat belts; Protective equipment; Safety engineering ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fatigue Models as Practical Tools: Diagnostic Accuracy and Decision Thresholds AN - 17903894; 5866810 AB - Human fatigue models are increasingly being used in a variety of industrial settings, both civilian and military. Current uses include education, awareness, and analysis of individual or group work schedules. Perhaps the ultimate and potentially most beneficial use of human fatigue models is to diagnose if an individual is sufficiently rested to perform a period of duty safely or effectively. When used in this way, two important questions should be asked: 1) What is the accuracy of the diagnosis for duty-specific performance in this application; and 2) What decision threshold is appropriate for this application (i.e., how "fatigued" does an individual have to be to be considered "not safe"). In the simplest situation, a diagnostic fatigue test must distinguish between two states: "fatigued" and "not fatigued," and the diagnostic decisions are "safe" (or "effective") and "not safe" (or "not effective"). The resulting four decision outcomes include diagnostic errors because diagnostic tests are not perfectly accurate. Moreover, since all outcomes have costs and benefits associated with them that differ between applications, the choice of a decision criterion is extremely important. Signal Detection Theory (SDT) has demonstrated usefulness in measuring the accuracy of diagnostic tests and optimizing diagnostic decisions. This paper describes how SDT can be applied to foster the development of fatigue models as practical diagnostic and decision-making tools. By clarifying the difference between accuracy (or sensitivity) and decision criterion (or bias) in the use of fatigue models as diagnostic and decision-making tools, the SDT framework focuses on such critical issues as duty-specific performance, variability (model and performance), and model sensitivity, efficacy, and utility. As fatigue models become increasingly used in a variety of different applications, it is important that end-users understand the interplay of these factors for their particular application. JF - Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine AU - Raslear, T G AU - Coplen, M AD - Federal Railroad Administration, Mail Stop 20, 1120 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC 20590, USA, Thomas.Raslear@fra.dot.gov Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 SP - A168 EP - A172 VL - 75 IS - 3 SN - 0095-6562, 0095-6562 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Education KW - Occupational safety KW - decision making KW - Working conditions KW - fatigue KW - H 1000:Occupational Safety and Health UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17903894?accountid=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=Aviation%2C+Space+and+Environmental+Medicine&rft.atitle=Fatigue+Models+as+Practical+Tools%3A+Diagnostic+Accuracy+and+Decision+Thresholds&rft.au=Raslear%2C+T+G%3BCoplen%2C+M&rft.aulast=Raslear&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=A168&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aviation%2C+Space+and+Environmental+Medicine&rft.issn=00956562&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - fatigue; decision making; Occupational safety; Education; Working conditions ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH MEDFORD INTERCHANGE PROJECT, INTERSTATE 5, MEDFORD, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16357021; 10654 AB - PURPOSE: The relocation of the South Medford interchange on Interstate 5 (I-5) south of its current location at Barnett Road in Jackson County, Oregon is proposed. The currently congested interchange results in safety projects due to the mix of local and regional traffic, which affects not only I-5 access but also east-west traffic crossing the freeway. The new interchange, which would be located in southwest Medford, would bridge I-5 and include connecting streets to Barnett Road and Highway 99. The new facility would include travel lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaped areas and other roadway-related facilities. A No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, known as the Highland Alternative, would be located approximately 1,903 feet south of the existing interchange. The facility would include new streets connecting the interchange structure to Barnett Road at its intersection with Highland Drive and to Oregon 99 at its current intersection with Barfield Street and Belknap Road. The existing interchange would be decommissioned, with the ramps being removed and Barnett Road remaining as an overpass. Highland Drive would become a four-leg intersection through the addition of an approach for the interchange. A new connection would be added over the interchange between Barnett Road at Highland Dive and Highway 99. Three new bridges would be built across Bear Creek and another bridge across Larson Creek. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $52 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of the interchange would reduce congestion, improve functionality of the junction, and improve safety. The project would also facilitate improvements to the capacity and functioning of the city's street system. Planned land uses and project growth patterns would be supported. The project would also improve connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of two to 32 residences and three to five businesses as well as parkland associated with Bear Creek Park, including 36.8 acres of vegetation. The interchange would increase pressure for conversion of residential land to commercial uses. Pedestrian movements across Highland Drive between the signalized intersections of Barnett Road and Siskiyou Boulevard could be impeded. Access to a commercial ice rink would be lost. Neighborhood cohesion would be affected due to increased traffic volume on the Highland Drive side of Bear Creek Park; this would also impede access to the park. The project would disproportionately affect elderly residents. One archaeological site and three historic sites would be affected. Noise levels would exceed federal standards for several sensitive receptors. Numerous bridge piers would be placed within the area floodplain, and a significant length of stream would be disturbed, potentially affecting the federal protected Coho salmon. Approximately one acre of wetland would be displaced. Three hazardous waste sites could be encountered during construction. Shrink-swell soils in the area could affect performance of the pavement and embankment structures. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 02-0078D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040099, 467 pages and maps, March 1, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OR-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+MEDFORD+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+5%2C+MEDFORD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+MEDFORD+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+INTERSTATE+5%2C+MEDFORD%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31, PLYMOUTH TO SOUTH BEND, US 30 TO US 20, MARSHALL AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTIES, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 31, PLYMOUTH TO SOUTH BEND, US 30 TO US 20, MARSHALL AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 36349684; 10653-040098_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between US 30 in Plymouth and the southern junction of US 31 and US 20 in South Bend, Marshall and St. Joseph counties, Indiana is proposed. The US 31 improvement corridor extends approximately 20 miles. The communities of LaPaz, Lakeville, and the south edge of South Bend lie within the limits of the project study area. Due to the fact that US 30 and US 20 have been functionally classified as principal arterials within the National Highway System and as Statewide Mobility Corridors in the Indiana Department of Transportation 2000-2005 Long Range Plan, they serve as logical termini for examining the need to improve this portion of US 31. Additionally, US 30 constitutes a major carrier of east-west traffic and is a logical origin and destination point for through traffic on US 31. US 20 represents the last major east-west arterial within the study corridor, and US 31 follows the US 20 Bypass to the west while Old US 31 continues northward from the US 31/US 20 interchange into the South Bend Metropolitan Area. Numerous segments along the study corridor operate at less than satisfactory levels of service and, by the year 2030, nearly all segments of US 31 will operate at unacceptable levels of service. Projected accident rates for numerous segments along US 31 exceed state averages significantly. In addition to non-freeway alternatives and a No Action Alternative, all of which fail to address the problems within the study corridor, this draft EIS then addresses 11 first phase-freeway alternatives. The freeway alternatives were further refined to generate 10 alternatives, which are either first-phase alternatives or subsets of first-phase alternatives. Three freeway alternatives are considered in detail. Regardless of the alternative chosen, the freeway would be fully access controlled via six or seven interchanges, 10 or 11 grade separation structures, and one grade separated railroad crossing. Estimated construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and engineering costs of the alternatives considered in detail range from $152 million to $185.9 million, from $45.6 million to $61.4 million, and from $11.1 million to $14.7 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce congestion and enhance safety on US 31 within the study corridor. The capacity of an important north-south connector to east-west arterials would be increased significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, ranging from 901 to 998 acres, would result in the displacement of 403 to 485 acres of agricultural land, 20 to 22 acres of commercial land, two acres of church property, 39 to 56 acres of herbaceous cover, one or two acres of open water, three to 14 acres of pasture, 51 to 70 acres of residential land, 38 to 43 acres of scrub/shrub habitat, 139 to 196 acres of woodland, 38.8 to 55.9 acres of forested wetlands, 1.4 to three acres of scrub/shrub wetlands, 15.6 to 26.3 acres of emergent wetlands, and 0.7 to one acre of aquatic bed wetlands. The project would also indirectly impact 45 to 85 acres of farmland, up to two acres of wetlands, and five to 25 acres of forested land. The project would require the displacement of 49 to 90 residences, six to 32 businesses, and one church. Two to five businesses would experience damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040098, 899 pages and maps, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31%2C+PLYMOUTH+TO+SOUTH+BEND%2C+US+30+TO+US+20%2C+MARSHALL+AND+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31%2C+PLYMOUTH+TO+SOUTH+BEND%2C+US+30+TO+US+20%2C+MARSHALL+AND+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 31, PLYMOUTH TO SOUTH BEND, US 30 TO US 20, MARSHALL AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 16341844; 10653 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of US 31 between US 30 in Plymouth and the southern junction of US 31 and US 20 in South Bend, Marshall and St. Joseph counties, Indiana is proposed. The US 31 improvement corridor extends approximately 20 miles. The communities of LaPaz, Lakeville, and the south edge of South Bend lie within the limits of the project study area. Due to the fact that US 30 and US 20 have been functionally classified as principal arterials within the National Highway System and as Statewide Mobility Corridors in the Indiana Department of Transportation 2000-2005 Long Range Plan, they serve as logical termini for examining the need to improve this portion of US 31. Additionally, US 30 constitutes a major carrier of east-west traffic and is a logical origin and destination point for through traffic on US 31. US 20 represents the last major east-west arterial within the study corridor, and US 31 follows the US 20 Bypass to the west while Old US 31 continues northward from the US 31/US 20 interchange into the South Bend Metropolitan Area. Numerous segments along the study corridor operate at less than satisfactory levels of service and, by the year 2030, nearly all segments of US 31 will operate at unacceptable levels of service. Projected accident rates for numerous segments along US 31 exceed state averages significantly. In addition to non-freeway alternatives and a No Action Alternative, all of which fail to address the problems within the study corridor, this draft EIS then addresses 11 first phase-freeway alternatives. The freeway alternatives were further refined to generate 10 alternatives, which are either first-phase alternatives or subsets of first-phase alternatives. Three freeway alternatives are considered in detail. Regardless of the alternative chosen, the freeway would be fully access controlled via six or seven interchanges, 10 or 11 grade separation structures, and one grade separated railroad crossing. Estimated construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and engineering costs of the alternatives considered in detail range from $152 million to $185.9 million, from $45.6 million to $61.4 million, and from $11.1 million to $14.7 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce congestion and enhance safety on US 31 within the study corridor. The capacity of an important north-south connector to east-west arterials would be increased significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, ranging from 901 to 998 acres, would result in the displacement of 403 to 485 acres of agricultural land, 20 to 22 acres of commercial land, two acres of church property, 39 to 56 acres of herbaceous cover, one or two acres of open water, three to 14 acres of pasture, 51 to 70 acres of residential land, 38 to 43 acres of scrub/shrub habitat, 139 to 196 acres of woodland, 38.8 to 55.9 acres of forested wetlands, 1.4 to three acres of scrub/shrub wetlands, 15.6 to 26.3 acres of emergent wetlands, and 0.7 to one acre of aquatic bed wetlands. The project would also indirectly impact 45 to 85 acres of farmland, up to two acres of wetlands, and five to 25 acres of forested land. The project would require the displacement of 49 to 90 residences, six to 32 businesses, and one church. Two to five businesses would experience damage. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040098, 899 pages and maps, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Indiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16341844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+31%2C+PLYMOUTH+TO+SOUTH+BEND%2C+US+30+TO+US+20%2C+MARSHALL+AND+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=US+31%2C+PLYMOUTH+TO+SOUTH+BEND%2C+US+30+TO+US+20%2C+MARSHALL+AND+ST.+JOSEPH+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Incorporating risk in the programmatic decision-making process - A case study AN - 39793966; 3823629 AU - Kepchar, K AU - Stack, T AU - Newnam, B Y1 - 2004/02/26/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Feb 26 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39793966?accountid=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=&rft.atitle=Incorporating+risk+in+the+programmatic+decision-making+process+-+A+case+study&rft.au=Kepchar%2C+K%3BStack%2C+T%3BNewnam%2C+B&rft.aulast=Kepchar&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Int'l Council on Systems Engineering, 2150 N. 107th St., Suite 205, Seattle, WA 98133-9009, USA; phone: 206-361-6607; fax: 206-367-8777; email: info@incose.org; URL: www.incose.org/symp2003/ N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Information system security protection levels-enabler for a secure millennium national air-space system AN - 39709256; 3823597 AU - McGowan, S B AU - Keblawi, F AU - Fujisaki, N AU - Sullivan, D Y1 - 2004/02/26/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Feb 26 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39709256?accountid=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=&rft.atitle=Information+system+security+protection+levels-enabler+for+a+secure+millennium+national+air-space+system&rft.au=McGowan%2C+S+B%3BKeblawi%2C+F%3BFujisaki%2C+N%3BSullivan%2C+D&rft.aulast=McGowan&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-02-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Int'l Council on Systems Engineering, 2150 N. 107th St., Suite 205, Seattle, WA 98133-9009, USA; phone: 206-361-6607; fax: 206-367-8777; email: info@incose.org; URL: www.incose.org/symp2003/ N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH OMAHA VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE, OMAHA, NEBRASKA AND COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH OMAHA VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE, OMAHA, NEBRASKA AND COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. AN - 36352736; 10643-040088_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the South Omaha Veterans Memorial Bridge, which carries US 275 across the Missouri River between Omaha, Nebraska and Council Bluffs, Iowa is proposed. The existing bridge is narrow and lacks the capacity to accommodate the current volume of traffic crossing the river at this point. The bridge provides only two 11-foot lanes and lacks the appropriate load carrying capacity, clearance and approach roadway alignment. US 275 is currently four lanes in Nebraska and two lanes in Iowa, but the Iowa Department of Transportation is currently planning to upgrade the Iowa facility to four lanes within a few years. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1N) would provide for a four-lane bridge offset appropriately 110 feet north of the existing bridge, with a median, shoulders, and a pedestrian /bicyclist lane. Improvements to Missouri Avenue would be offset to the north from the existing centerline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe. environmentally, sound, cost-effective, and efficient crossing of the Missouri River for users of US 275. The four-lane bridge would complement the four-lane section in Nebraska and the planned four-lane section in Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 20 acres of new rights-of-way development, including 6 acres acquired in fee simple and 14 acres acquired through easements, would require the relocation of 16 residences and two businesses, resulting in the displacement of 11 local jobs. Some community cohesion would be sacrificed. The project would also displace 2.77 acres of wetlands, four acres of low-quality riparian forest, three trees that could offer roosting sites for eagles, and nine acres within an off-highway vehicle park. Demolition of the existing bridge would result in the loss of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Two hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 11 sensitive receptor sites. US 275 would e closed for up to four months during construction. 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). JF - EPA number: 040088, 311 pages, February 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NE-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Iowa KW - Nebraska KW - Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 1992, Recreational Resources 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+OMAHA+VETERANS+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE%2C+OMAHA%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+COUNCIL+BLUFFS%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=SOUTH+OMAHA+VETERANS+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE%2C+OMAHA%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+COUNCIL+BLUFFS%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lincoln, Nebraska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH OMAHA VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE, OMAHA, NEBRASKA AND COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. AN - 16341793; 10643 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the South Omaha Veterans Memorial Bridge, which carries US 275 across the Missouri River between Omaha, Nebraska and Council Bluffs, Iowa is proposed. The existing bridge is narrow and lacks the capacity to accommodate the current volume of traffic crossing the river at this point. The bridge provides only two 11-foot lanes and lacks the appropriate load carrying capacity, clearance and approach roadway alignment. US 275 is currently four lanes in Nebraska and two lanes in Iowa, but the Iowa Department of Transportation is currently planning to upgrade the Iowa facility to four lanes within a few years. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1N) would provide for a four-lane bridge offset appropriately 110 feet north of the existing bridge, with a median, shoulders, and a pedestrian /bicyclist lane. Improvements to Missouri Avenue would be offset to the north from the existing centerline. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe. environmentally, sound, cost-effective, and efficient crossing of the Missouri River for users of US 275. The four-lane bridge would complement the four-lane section in Nebraska and the planned four-lane section in Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 20 acres of new rights-of-way development, including 6 acres acquired in fee simple and 14 acres acquired through easements, would require the relocation of 16 residences and two businesses, resulting in the displacement of 11 local jobs. Some community cohesion would be sacrificed. The project would also displace 2.77 acres of wetlands, four acres of low-quality riparian forest, three trees that could offer roosting sites for eagles, and nine acres within an off-highway vehicle park. Demolition of the existing bridge would result in the loss of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Two hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 11 sensitive receptor sites. US 275 would e closed for up to four months during construction. 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). JF - EPA number: 040088, 311 pages, February 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NE-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Iowa KW - Nebraska KW - Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 1992, Recreational Resources 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16341793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+OMAHA+VETERANS+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE%2C+OMAHA%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+COUNCIL+BLUFFS%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=SOUTH+OMAHA+VETERANS+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE%2C+OMAHA%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+COUNCIL+BLUFFS%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lincoln, Nebraska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36438837; 10639 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36438837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36352676; 10639-040083_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36352676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36349605; 10639-040083_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (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 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36349605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONWAY WESTERN ARTERIAL LOOP, FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS. AN - 36432514; 10636 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a western arterial loop on the south and west sides of Conway in Faulkner County, Arkansas is proposed. The arterial, to be known as the Conway Western Arterial Loop, would connect to Interstate 40 (I-40) on the northwest side of Conway, extend to the south through the west side of Conway, turn east across the south side of Conway, and reconnect to I-40 on the south side of Conway. Conway is located approximately 25 miles northwest of Little Rock and is the most populated city in Faulkner County, constituting part of the Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area. Over the past decade Conway has grown dramatically and has emerged as a strong satellite community in the Little Rock area. Four alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 11.2 miles to 16.6 miles. Depending on the build alternative considered and whether a crossing of Gold Creek would be provided, estimated cost of the project ranges from $84.4 million and $124.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide additional arterial route capacity within the vicinity of western Conway and in the southwestern corner of Faulkner County to meet current and future traffic needs. The project would provide an alternative to existing arterial routes connecting western Conway to I-40. Traffic using this alternative route would be diverted from the existing arterial routes connecting western Conway to I,-40, resulting in a reduction of traffic congestion and an improvement in safety conditions on those arterial routes. The diversion of traffic would also receive congestion at the existing interchanges connecting to I-40 in Conway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would traverse 3.6 to 10.6 acres of floodplain and displace 65.3 to 74.5 acres of forest, 2.2 to 4.1 acres of wetlands, 7.8 to 25.7 acres of pasture, and five to 31.9 acres of cropland. Some housing units would be displaced, possibly including units disproportionately owned by low-income minority residents in the Gold Creek community. One alternative could affect the habitat of a federally protected species. Low to moderate impacts would be expected for cultural resource sites. The highway would traverse three to nine hazardous materials sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of four to nine sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040080, 431 pages, February 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Arkansas KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONWAY+WESTERN+ARTERIAL+LOOP%2C+FAULKNER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=CONWAY+WESTERN+ARTERIAL+LOOP%2C+FAULKNER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONWAY WESTERN ARTERIAL LOOP, FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CONWAY WESTERN ARTERIAL LOOP, FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS. AN - 36352390; 10636-040080_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a western arterial loop on the south and west sides of Conway in Faulkner County, Arkansas is proposed. The arterial, to be known as the Conway Western Arterial Loop, would connect to Interstate 40 (I-40) on the northwest side of Conway, extend to the south through the west side of Conway, turn east across the south side of Conway, and reconnect to I-40 on the south side of Conway. Conway is located approximately 25 miles northwest of Little Rock and is the most populated city in Faulkner County, constituting part of the Little Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area. Over the past decade Conway has grown dramatically and has emerged as a strong satellite community in the Little Rock area. Four alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 11.2 miles to 16.6 miles. Depending on the build alternative considered and whether a crossing of Gold Creek would be provided, estimated cost of the project ranges from $84.4 million and $124.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide additional arterial route capacity within the vicinity of western Conway and in the southwestern corner of Faulkner County to meet current and future traffic needs. The project would provide an alternative to existing arterial routes connecting western Conway to I-40. Traffic using this alternative route would be diverted from the existing arterial routes connecting western Conway to I,-40, resulting in a reduction of traffic congestion and an improvement in safety conditions on those arterial routes. The diversion of traffic would also receive congestion at the existing interchanges connecting to I-40 in Conway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would traverse 3.6 to 10.6 acres of floodplain and displace 65.3 to 74.5 acres of forest, 2.2 to 4.1 acres of wetlands, 7.8 to 25.7 acres of pasture, and five to 31.9 acres of cropland. Some housing units would be displaced, possibly including units disproportionately owned by low-income minority residents in the Gold Creek community. One alternative could affect the habitat of a federally protected species. Low to moderate impacts would be expected for cultural resource sites. The highway would traverse three to nine hazardous materials sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of four to nine sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040080, 431 pages, February 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Arkansas KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONWAY+WESTERN+ARTERIAL+LOOP%2C+FAULKNER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=CONWAY+WESTERN+ARTERIAL+LOOP%2C+FAULKNER+COUNTY%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, HENDERSON, KENTUCKY TO EVANSVILLE, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, HENDERSON, KENTUCKY TO EVANSVILLE, INDIANA. AN - 36352179; 10632-040076_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a freeway between Henderson, Kentucky and Evansville, Indiana is proposed. The project would extend Interstate (I-69) north from Edward T. Breathitt Parkway (formerly known as the Pennyrile Parkway) in south of the city of Henderson to I-64 north of the city of Evansville. The study area is bounded on the west and east by the Sloughs Wildlife Management Area and the Green river National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. The project would consist of a portion of a north-south interstate freeway between Canada and Mexico; the entire project consists of 32 section of independent utility, each of which can function independently within its own termini, providing benefits to those areas served. Five alternatives, including four alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The freeway, which would extend 30 to 32 miles, would provide three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, flanked by 12-foot shoulders along rural sections and 14-foot shoulders in elevated urban sections. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to traffic levels, pedestrian/bicycle use within the corridor, construction impacts, seismic activity in the area, federal and state permits, access and interchange locations rights-of-way constraints, and hydraulics and floodplain impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute a critical link in the I-69 National Corridor, providing sufficient capacity for anticipated design year traffic volumes, including both interstate and international traffic that would ultimately use the facility. The freeway would improve the system linkage in southern Indiana and western Kentucky, and provide improved access to other major transportation routes, including enhanced access to multi-modal facilities. Any build alternative would reduce travel time and improve the economy of travel by reducing operating costs. Locally, the eastern corridors would provide the most significant improvements to the Evansville-Henderson transportation system. A new bridge over the Ohio River under one alternative would carry the most traffic of any of the build alternatives and provide the greatest level of traffic relief from reassignment of trips from the existing US 41 bridges. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development of new rights-of-way would require the acquisition of 723 to 1,521 acres of land, resulting in the relocation of six to 74 residences and seven commercial establishments and altering community cohesion along the corridor. Rights-of-way would include 538 to 1,077 acres of farmland and 44 to 258 acres of forested land. Each build alternative would traverse the floodplains of the Ohio River and adjacent streams, impacting 20 to 39 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and encroaching on 41 to 66 streams. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at three locations under one alternative and could affect historic sites under other alternatives. Five to 12 archaeological sites would be affected by construction activities. Potential hazardous materials sites would include abandoned gasoline stations, one salvage yard, and railroad lines. Gas, oil, and coal reserves underlie significant portions of each of the build alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040076, 821 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+HENDERSON%2C+KENTUCKY+TO+EVANSVILLE%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+HENDERSON%2C+KENTUCKY+TO+EVANSVILLE%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, HENDERSON, KENTUCKY TO EVANSVILLE, INDIANA. AN - 16357129; 10632 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a freeway between Henderson, Kentucky and Evansville, Indiana is proposed. The project would extend Interstate (I-69) north from Edward T. Breathitt Parkway (formerly known as the Pennyrile Parkway) in south of the city of Henderson to I-64 north of the city of Evansville. The study area is bounded on the west and east by the Sloughs Wildlife Management Area and the Green river National Wildlife Refuge, respectively. The project would consist of a portion of a north-south interstate freeway between Canada and Mexico; the entire project consists of 32 section of independent utility, each of which can function independently within its own termini, providing benefits to those areas served. Five alternatives, including four alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The freeway, which would extend 30 to 32 miles, would provide three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, flanked by 12-foot shoulders along rural sections and 14-foot shoulders in elevated urban sections. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to traffic levels, pedestrian/bicycle use within the corridor, construction impacts, seismic activity in the area, federal and state permits, access and interchange locations rights-of-way constraints, and hydraulics and floodplain impacts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute a critical link in the I-69 National Corridor, providing sufficient capacity for anticipated design year traffic volumes, including both interstate and international traffic that would ultimately use the facility. The freeway would improve the system linkage in southern Indiana and western Kentucky, and provide improved access to other major transportation routes, including enhanced access to multi-modal facilities. Any build alternative would reduce travel time and improve the economy of travel by reducing operating costs. Locally, the eastern corridors would provide the most significant improvements to the Evansville-Henderson transportation system. A new bridge over the Ohio River under one alternative would carry the most traffic of any of the build alternatives and provide the greatest level of traffic relief from reassignment of trips from the existing US 41 bridges. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The development of new rights-of-way would require the acquisition of 723 to 1,521 acres of land, resulting in the relocation of six to 74 residences and seven commercial establishments and altering community cohesion along the corridor. Rights-of-way would include 538 to 1,077 acres of farmland and 44 to 258 acres of forested land. Each build alternative would traverse the floodplains of the Ohio River and adjacent streams, impacting 20 to 39 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and encroaching on 41 to 66 streams. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at three locations under one alternative and could affect historic sites under other alternatives. Five to 12 archaeological sites would be affected by construction activities. Potential hazardous materials sites would include abandoned gasoline stations, one salvage yard, and railroad lines. Gas, oil, and coal reserves underlie significant portions of each of the build alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040076, 821 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 17, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+HENDERSON%2C+KENTUCKY+TO+EVANSVILLE%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+HENDERSON%2C+KENTUCKY+TO+EVANSVILLE%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO SABANA PICNIC AREA CONSTRUCTION, RIO SABANA TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION, AND HIGHWAY PR 191 RECONSTRUCTION, KM 21.3 TO 20.0, CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST, PUERTO RICO. AN - 36429358; 10625 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a day-use picnic area and the reconstruction of the historic Rio Sabana Trail on the south side of the Caribbean National Forest of Puerto Rico are proposed. There are currently no developed recreation facilities or trails on the south side of the national forest. Residents of communities in the area, particularly residents of Naguabo, have voiced dissatisfaction with this lack of facilities near their homes. The picnic area, which would be located in the vicinity of Rio Sabana Bridge on Puerto Rico Highway 191 (PR 191) at kilometer 20, would consist of 10 shelters, toilets, a potable water source, and a 15-space parking area. The 2.5-mile trail follows the Rio Sabana Valley from PR 191 to the Tradewinds National Recreation Trail. In order to provide vehicular access to the picnic area, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PRDOT) would reconstruct the re-open PR 191 from kilometer 21.3 to kilometer 20. The highway is currently closed to public traffic at kilometer 21.3. Reconstruction of this segment of PR 191 would be contingent upon the U.S. Forest Service's division to proceed with construction of the picnic area. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include the No Action Alternative, reconstruction of the trail only, and construction of the picnic area, the segment of PR 191, and the first mile of the trail. The preferred alternative would include construction of the picnic area and trail. Reconstruction of PR 191 would not begin until after construction of the picnic area was substantially completed. Costs of construction of the picnic area, reconstruction of the trail, and annual maintenance of the picnic area and the trail are estimated at $560,000, $75,000, $45,000, and $5,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a developed recreation site and trail in a currently underserved area. Adverse environmental effects of concentrated recreational uses at sites lacking sanitary, parking, and waste disposal facilities would be reduced. The historic character of the trail would be restored and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would disturb 3.5 acres of land and result in 38 tons of soil erosion. The area exposed to human disturbance following the completion of the project would amount to 1,236 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0408D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040071, 107 pages, February 13, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Caribbean National Forest KW - Puerto Rico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+SABANA+PICNIC+AREA+CONSTRUCTION%2C+RIO+SABANA+TRAIL+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+AND+HIGHWAY+PR+191+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+KM+21.3+TO+20.0%2C+CARIBBEAN+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=RIO+SABANA+PICNIC+AREA+CONSTRUCTION%2C+RIO+SABANA+TRAIL+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+AND+HIGHWAY+PR+191+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+KM+21.3+TO+20.0%2C+CARIBBEAN+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Palmer, Puerto Rico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO SABANA PICNIC AREA CONSTRUCTION, RIO SABANA TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION, AND HIGHWAY PR 191 RECONSTRUCTION, KM 21.3 TO 20.0, CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST, PUERTO RICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RIO SABANA PICNIC AREA CONSTRUCTION, RIO SABANA TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION, AND HIGHWAY PR 191 RECONSTRUCTION, KM 21.3 TO 20.0, CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST, PUERTO RICO. AN - 36351138; 10625-040071_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a day-use picnic area and the reconstruction of the historic Rio Sabana Trail on the south side of the Caribbean National Forest of Puerto Rico are proposed. There are currently no developed recreation facilities or trails on the south side of the national forest. Residents of communities in the area, particularly residents of Naguabo, have voiced dissatisfaction with this lack of facilities near their homes. The picnic area, which would be located in the vicinity of Rio Sabana Bridge on Puerto Rico Highway 191 (PR 191) at kilometer 20, would consist of 10 shelters, toilets, a potable water source, and a 15-space parking area. The 2.5-mile trail follows the Rio Sabana Valley from PR 191 to the Tradewinds National Recreation Trail. In order to provide vehicular access to the picnic area, the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (PRDOT) would reconstruct the re-open PR 191 from kilometer 21.3 to kilometer 20. The highway is currently closed to public traffic at kilometer 21.3. Reconstruction of this segment of PR 191 would be contingent upon the U.S. Forest Service's division to proceed with construction of the picnic area. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include the No Action Alternative, reconstruction of the trail only, and construction of the picnic area, the segment of PR 191, and the first mile of the trail. The preferred alternative would include construction of the picnic area and trail. Reconstruction of PR 191 would not begin until after construction of the picnic area was substantially completed. Costs of construction of the picnic area, reconstruction of the trail, and annual maintenance of the picnic area and the trail are estimated at $560,000, $75,000, $45,000, and $5,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a developed recreation site and trail in a currently underserved area. Adverse environmental effects of concentrated recreational uses at sites lacking sanitary, parking, and waste disposal facilities would be reduced. The historic character of the trail would be restored and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project activities would disturb 3.5 acres of land and result in 38 tons of soil erosion. The area exposed to human disturbance following the completion of the project would amount to 1,236 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0408D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040071, 107 pages, February 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Erosion KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Caribbean National Forest KW - Puerto Rico KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+SABANA+PICNIC+AREA+CONSTRUCTION%2C+RIO+SABANA+TRAIL+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+AND+HIGHWAY+PR+191+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+KM+21.3+TO+20.0%2C+CARIBBEAN+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=RIO+SABANA+PICNIC+AREA+CONSTRUCTION%2C+RIO+SABANA+TRAIL+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+AND+HIGHWAY+PR+191+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+KM+21.3+TO+20.0%2C+CARIBBEAN+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Palmer, Puerto Rico; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MS 475 IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-20 TO OLD BRANDON ROAD, RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (DPM-0035-01-001/100551/9001000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MS 475 IMPROVEMENTS, FROM I-20 TO OLD BRANDON ROAD, RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI (DPM-0035-01-001/100551/9001000). AN - 36355846; 10619-040065_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of Mississippi Highway (MH) 475 from interstate 20 (I-20) to Old Brondon Road in Rankin County, Mississippi is proposed. The existing facility is characterized by significant levels of congestion and the associated increased travel times and safety hazards. This situation is particularly daunting for moorists attempting to reach or return from Jackson International Airport. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred build alternative, the improvements would begin at the I-20 interchange and continue along the existing MS 475 alignment to a point just south of US 80, where it would shift slightly to the west on a new alignment, then intersect with US 80 and continue in a northwesterly direction to Old Bradon Road. Following its intersection with Old Brandon Road, the roadway would merge with existing MS 475. Construction and rights-of-way costs are estimated at $72.0 million and $16.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements to MS 475 would bring the facility up to interstate freeway standards between I-20 and Airport Parkway; provide free-flow directional movements and local access at I-20, maintain local access between I-20 and US 80, remain largely within existing rights-of-way; remove Old Brandon Road, Airport Road, and International Boulevard from the airport clear zone; provide free-flow access to and from the MS 475 freeway from MS 475 North and MS 475 South, to International Boulevard outside the airport clear zone, and into and out of Jackson International Airport at Old Brandon Road; provide an acceptable level of service and acceptable weave conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would affect 6.55 acres of wetlands and 4,010 linear feet of stream. Though the federally protected bald eagle, Gulf sturgeon, ringed sawback turtle, and Louisiana black bear occur in the project area, none of these species were observed during the field survey of the project corridor. One hazardous material site, the Conoco Super Stop gas station, would lie within the construction corridor; this facility would be relocated if the project were implemented. In addition to the gas station, the project would displace a motel currently under construction. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at five occupied facilities; however, none of the affected facilities would experience a substantial increase of 15 decibels or higher. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (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 03-0459D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040065, 278 pages and maps, February 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-03-01-F KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MS+475+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-20+TO+OLD+BRANDON+ROAD%2C+RANKIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DPM-0035-01-001%2F100551%2F9001000%29.&rft.title=MS+475+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+I-20+TO+OLD+BRANDON+ROAD%2C+RANKIN+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI+%28DPM-0035-01-001%2F100551%2F9001000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. AN - 36352092; 10610-040056_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train (HST) system for intercity travel in California is proposed. The system would connect the major metropolitan areas of the state from Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose through Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield, to Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The need to improve the state's transportation infrastructure is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond, and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result for California's highways and airports. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, the Modal Alternative, would combine potential improvements to the existing highway and transportation facilities. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would provide the HST system, consisting of an electrically driven steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system and stations. The HST system would extend approximately 700 miles and would provide technology capable of achieving speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on tracks that would be largely dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints. To reduce environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment options lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel setments? would be provided through the mountain passes (Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south San Jose and the Merced, and the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Sylmar. The system would incorporate state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The HST would transport as many as 68 million passengers annually by the year 2020, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding trains or using longer trains. The HST Alternative includes several corridor /alignment and station options. The Modal Alternative would include adding over 2,970 lane miles to existing highways and 60 gates and five runways to existing state airports. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide a new mode of intercity travel and an improved level of connectivity between existing transportation modes that would not be provided by either of the other alternatives under considerations. High-speed trains would provide door-to-door travel times not unlike, and in some cases better, than air transportation. Highway accident rates would decline significantly due to train ridership and the reduction in highway travel miles per passenger. Reduced vehicular congestion on highways would improve air quality and reduce ambient noise in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in many areas; air quality would improve on a regional basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the system would result in displacement of commercial and residential properties, disruption of communities and neighborhoods, increased noise and vibration for residences and businesses located along the tracks, local traffic impacts in the vicinity of stations, impacts to historic properties and archaeological sites, impacts on parks and recreational resources, visual impacts in scenic areas of the state; impacts to sensitive biological resources and wetlands, use of energy, and displacement and severance of agricultural land. 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.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040056, Draft EIS--1,781 pages, Appendices--1,566 pages, February 3, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Air Quality KW - Cost Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. AN - 16348390; 10610 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train (HST) system for intercity travel in California is proposed. The system would connect the major metropolitan areas of the state from Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose through Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield, to Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The need to improve the state's transportation infrastructure is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond, and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result for California's highways and airports. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, the Modal Alternative, would combine potential improvements to the existing highway and transportation facilities. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would provide the HST system, consisting of an electrically driven steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system and stations. The HST system would extend approximately 700 miles and would provide technology capable of achieving speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on tracks that would be largely dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints. To reduce environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment options lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel setments? would be provided through the mountain passes (Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south San Jose and the Merced, and the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Sylmar. The system would incorporate state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The HST would transport as many as 68 million passengers annually by the year 2020, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding trains or using longer trains. The HST Alternative includes several corridor /alignment and station options. The Modal Alternative would include adding over 2,970 lane miles to existing highways and 60 gates and five runways to existing state airports. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide a new mode of intercity travel and an improved level of connectivity between existing transportation modes that would not be provided by either of the other alternatives under considerations. High-speed trains would provide door-to-door travel times not unlike, and in some cases better, than air transportation. Highway accident rates would decline significantly due to train ridership and the reduction in highway travel miles per passenger. Reduced vehicular congestion on highways would improve air quality and reduce ambient noise in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in many areas; air quality would improve on a regional basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the system would result in displacement of commercial and residential properties, disruption of communities and neighborhoods, increased noise and vibration for residences and businesses located along the tracks, local traffic impacts in the vicinity of stations, impacts to historic properties and archaeological sites, impacts on parks and recreational resources, visual impacts in scenic areas of the state; impacts to sensitive biological resources and wetlands, use of energy, and displacement and severance of agricultural land. 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.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040056, Draft EIS--1,781 pages, Appendices--1,566 pages, February 3, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Air Quality KW - Cost Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36438649; 10605 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 880 (I-880)/Route 92 interchange in Hayward, California, is proposed. The existing interchange is inadequate in terms of both traffic capacity and geometric design to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. One of the major drawbacks associated with a four-quadrant interchange is the weaving conflicts inherent in the design. The off- and on-ramps merge together within a short section adjacent to the freeway, resulting in weaving conflicts and constrained capacity for vehicles entering and exiting the interchange. The existing four quadrant cloverleaf interchange would be replaced by a new interchange, with direct connectors (flyovers) from Route 92 eastbound to I-880 northbound and from Route 92 westbound to I-880 southbound. Other improvements would include auxiliary lanes on I-880 north and south of Route 92, a new pedestrian overcrossing, and provision for the future construction of traffic operation system improvements such as high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of May 1997. The two build alternatives are identical in terms of interchange geometrics. Alternative 2D would differ only from 2C in that it would involve a westward shift of I-880 north of the interchange for a distance of about 3,000 feet, and includes an auxiliary lane on southbound I-880 between Winton Avenue and Route 92 westbound off-ramp. A fourth alternative (Alternative H) was added since the publication of the draft EIS; a June 2002 supplement to the draft EIS addressed impacts of Alternative H and reviewed impacts of the other alternatives. Ten scenarios for Alternative H, differing in the number of lanes, merge points, turn movements, and ramp metering, were examined to determine the configuration that would provide optimum traffic operations. This final EIS addresses the three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. Alternative H has been selected as the preferred alternative. Costs of alternatives 2C, 2D, and H are estimated at $154.4 million, $151.6 million, and $134 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would relieve traffic congestion that occurs during the hours of peak traffic volume, reduce or eliminate the need for drivers to use diversion routes to avoid the interchange, provide additional roadway capacity, and improve traffic safety and operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 57 single-family homes. The construction activities would result in an increase of sedimentation loads in area streams and an increase in noise levels. Once the new interchange was operational, nearby residences would experience an increase in noise levels. Some landscaped freeway sections would not be retained, resulting in adverse visual impacts. Three small jurisdictional wetlands, covering a total of 0.326 acres, would be filled. of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C 7901). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 97-0218D, Volume 21, Number 3 and 02-0431D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040051, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Draft EIS)--447 pages, Responses to Comments (Draft Supplemental EIS)--229 pages, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-95-2-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36352163; 10605-040051_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 880 (I-880)/Route 92 interchange in Hayward, California, is proposed. The existing interchange is inadequate in terms of both traffic capacity and geometric design to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. One of the major drawbacks associated with a four-quadrant interchange is the weaving conflicts inherent in the design. The off- and on-ramps merge together within a short section adjacent to the freeway, resulting in weaving conflicts and constrained capacity for vehicles entering and exiting the interchange. The existing four quadrant cloverleaf interchange would be replaced by a new interchange, with direct connectors (flyovers) from Route 92 eastbound to I-880 northbound and from Route 92 westbound to I-880 southbound. Other improvements would include auxiliary lanes on I-880 north and south of Route 92, a new pedestrian overcrossing, and provision for the future construction of traffic operation system improvements such as high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of May 1997. The two build alternatives are identical in terms of interchange geometrics. Alternative 2D would differ only from 2C in that it would involve a westward shift of I-880 north of the interchange for a distance of about 3,000 feet, and includes an auxiliary lane on southbound I-880 between Winton Avenue and Route 92 westbound off-ramp. A fourth alternative (Alternative H) was added since the publication of the draft EIS; a June 2002 supplement to the draft EIS addressed impacts of Alternative H and reviewed impacts of the other alternatives. Ten scenarios for Alternative H, differing in the number of lanes, merge points, turn movements, and ramp metering, were examined to determine the configuration that would provide optimum traffic operations. This final EIS addresses the three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. Alternative H has been selected as the preferred alternative. Costs of alternatives 2C, 2D, and H are estimated at $154.4 million, $151.6 million, and $134 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would relieve traffic congestion that occurs during the hours of peak traffic volume, reduce or eliminate the need for drivers to use diversion routes to avoid the interchange, provide additional roadway capacity, and improve traffic safety and operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 57 single-family homes. The construction activities would result in an increase of sedimentation loads in area streams and an increase in noise levels. Once the new interchange was operational, nearby residences would experience an increase in noise levels. Some landscaped freeway sections would not be retained, resulting in adverse visual impacts. Three small jurisdictional wetlands, covering a total of 0.326 acres, would be filled. of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C 7901). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 97-0218D, Volume 21, Number 3 and 02-0431D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040051, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Draft EIS)--447 pages, Responses to Comments (Draft Supplemental EIS)--229 pages, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-95-2-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36350777; 10605-040051_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 880 (I-880)/Route 92 interchange in Hayward, California, is proposed. The existing interchange is inadequate in terms of both traffic capacity and geometric design to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. One of the major drawbacks associated with a four-quadrant interchange is the weaving conflicts inherent in the design. The off- and on-ramps merge together within a short section adjacent to the freeway, resulting in weaving conflicts and constrained capacity for vehicles entering and exiting the interchange. The existing four quadrant cloverleaf interchange would be replaced by a new interchange, with direct connectors (flyovers) from Route 92 eastbound to I-880 northbound and from Route 92 westbound to I-880 southbound. Other improvements would include auxiliary lanes on I-880 north and south of Route 92, a new pedestrian overcrossing, and provision for the future construction of traffic operation system improvements such as high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of May 1997. The two build alternatives are identical in terms of interchange geometrics. Alternative 2D would differ only from 2C in that it would involve a westward shift of I-880 north of the interchange for a distance of about 3,000 feet, and includes an auxiliary lane on southbound I-880 between Winton Avenue and Route 92 westbound off-ramp. A fourth alternative (Alternative H) was added since the publication of the draft EIS; a June 2002 supplement to the draft EIS addressed impacts of Alternative H and reviewed impacts of the other alternatives. Ten scenarios for Alternative H, differing in the number of lanes, merge points, turn movements, and ramp metering, were examined to determine the configuration that would provide optimum traffic operations. This final EIS addresses the three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. Alternative H has been selected as the preferred alternative. Costs of alternatives 2C, 2D, and H are estimated at $154.4 million, $151.6 million, and $134 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would relieve traffic congestion that occurs during the hours of peak traffic volume, reduce or eliminate the need for drivers to use diversion routes to avoid the interchange, provide additional roadway capacity, and improve traffic safety and operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 57 single-family homes. The construction activities would result in an increase of sedimentation loads in area streams and an increase in noise levels. Once the new interchange was operational, nearby residences would experience an increase in noise levels. Some landscaped freeway sections would not be retained, resulting in adverse visual impacts. Three small jurisdictional wetlands, covering a total of 0.326 acres, would be filled. of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C 7901). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 97-0218D, Volume 21, Number 3 and 02-0431D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040051, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Draft EIS)--447 pages, Responses to Comments (Draft Supplemental EIS)--229 pages, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-95-2-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - INTERSTATE 880/STATE ROUTE 92 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION ON INTERSTATE 880 FROM WEST WINTON AVENUE TO WEST TENNYSON ROAD AND ON STATE ROUTE 92 FROM HESPERIAN BOULEVARD TO SANTA CLARA STREET, CITY OF HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36350495; 10605-040051_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 880 (I-880)/Route 92 interchange in Hayward, California, is proposed. The existing interchange is inadequate in terms of both traffic capacity and geometric design to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. One of the major drawbacks associated with a four-quadrant interchange is the weaving conflicts inherent in the design. The off- and on-ramps merge together within a short section adjacent to the freeway, resulting in weaving conflicts and constrained capacity for vehicles entering and exiting the interchange. The existing four quadrant cloverleaf interchange would be replaced by a new interchange, with direct connectors (flyovers) from Route 92 eastbound to I-880 northbound and from Route 92 westbound to I-880 southbound. Other improvements would include auxiliary lanes on I-880 north and south of Route 92, a new pedestrian overcrossing, and provision for the future construction of traffic operation system improvements such as high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of May 1997. The two build alternatives are identical in terms of interchange geometrics. Alternative 2D would differ only from 2C in that it would involve a westward shift of I-880 north of the interchange for a distance of about 3,000 feet, and includes an auxiliary lane on southbound I-880 between Winton Avenue and Route 92 westbound off-ramp. A fourth alternative (Alternative H) was added since the publication of the draft EIS; a June 2002 supplement to the draft EIS addressed impacts of Alternative H and reviewed impacts of the other alternatives. Ten scenarios for Alternative H, differing in the number of lanes, merge points, turn movements, and ramp metering, were examined to determine the configuration that would provide optimum traffic operations. This final EIS addresses the three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. Alternative H has been selected as the preferred alternative. Costs of alternatives 2C, 2D, and H are estimated at $154.4 million, $151.6 million, and $134 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new interchange would relieve traffic congestion that occurs during the hours of peak traffic volume, reduce or eliminate the need for drivers to use diversion routes to avoid the interchange, provide additional roadway capacity, and improve traffic safety and operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 57 single-family homes. The construction activities would result in an increase of sedimentation loads in area streams and an increase in noise levels. Once the new interchange was operational, nearby residences would experience an increase in noise levels. Some landscaped freeway sections would not be retained, resulting in adverse visual impacts. Three small jurisdictional wetlands, covering a total of 0.326 acres, would be filled. of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C 7901). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 97-0218D, Volume 21, Number 3 and 02-0431D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040051, Final EIS--421 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Draft EIS)--447 pages, Responses to Comments (Draft Supplemental EIS)--229 pages, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-95-2-F KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+880%2FSTATE+ROUTE+92+INTERCHANGE+RECONSTRUCTION+ON+INTERSTATE+880+FROM+WEST+WINTON+AVENUE+TO+WEST+TENNYSON+ROAD+AND+ON+STATE+ROUTE+92+FROM+HESPERIAN+BOULEVARD+TO+SANTA+CLARA+STREET%2C+CITY+OF+HAYWARD%2C+ALAMEDA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36429585; 10601 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359571; 10601-040047_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359471; 10601-040047_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359324; 10601-040047_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36355141; 10601-040047_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354588; 10601-040047_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354434; 10601-040047_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354349; 10601-040047_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354240; 10601-040047_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354088; 10601-040047_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354009; 10601-040047_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351982; 10601-040047_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351892; 10601-040047_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351878; 10601-040047_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351624; 10601-040047_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350786; 10601-040047_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350704; 10601-040047_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350612; 10601-040047_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350450; 10601-040047_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350123; 10601-040047_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349368; 10601-040047_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349296; 10601-040047_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349212; 10601-040047_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349134; 10601-040047_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36435287; 10599 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36354535; 10599-040045_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 161/37 IMPROVEMENT, FRANKLIN AND LICKING COUNTIES, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SR 161/37 IMPROVEMENT, FRANKLIN AND LICKING COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 36350609; 10600-040046_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12.6-mile section of State Route (SR) 161/37 on new alignment in Franklin and Liking counties, Ohio is proposed. Average daily traffic has increased roughly 80 percent within the corridor since 1996 and the current average level of service is unacceptable for a major transportation facility. High travel demand and inadequate capacity have resulted in accident rates that are higher than the statewide average for two-lane principal arterial highways from 1996 to 198 and from 1998 to 2001. Two alignment alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), the realigned roadway would extend from the eastern terminus of the existing four lane SR 161 (New Albany Bypass) to just west of the SR 161/37 interchange with SR 16. The facility would consist of a four-lane limited access highway, with opposing lanes divided by a 72-foot depressed grass median, which would accommodate additional travel lanes in the future if necessary. The highway would be flanked by six-foot-wide paved inside shoulders and 10-foot-wide paved outside shoulders bordered by grass drainage ditches and embankments. A two-lane service road would be provided on either side of the highway. A 400-foot-wide right-of-way would be obtained. Access to the improved highway facility would be provided via full freeway-type interchanges, currently planned for Beech Road, SR 310, and SR 37 /York Road. the project would include closure of Harrison Road, Burnside Road, and Watkins Road via cul-de-sac arrangements. Side road overpasses would be provided for Mink Street, Outville Road, and Morse Road. Extension and realignment work would be performed for existing Dublin-Granville Road (Old SR 161), Jersey Mill Road, SR 161 from Watkins Road to York Road, SR 161 immediately west of SR 37/York Road, SR 37 immediately east of SR 161/37/York Road, SR 37 immediately east of SR 161.37/York Road, County Road (CR) 539a west to SR 37, and Morse Road north to extended CR 539a. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would constitute an integral component of Ohio's long-range multi-modal transportation plan as part of a designated Macro-Corridor that includes SR 161, SR 37, SR 16, and US 36 between Interstate 270 (I-270) and I-77 in Franklin, Licking, Muskingum, Coshocton, and Tuscarawas counties. IN addition, the SR 161/37 project would be part of Ohio's statewide transportation plan as part of adopted metropolitan planning organization transportation improvement plans due to increasing traffic demand, congestion, and accident rates within the corridor as well as the existence of recently improved multi-lane highway segments immediately east and west of the existing two-lane SR 161/37 corridor in eastern Franklin and western Licking counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the conversion of 601 acres of private property to public transportation uses, displacement or landlocking of 46 single-family homes and eight business properties encompassing 11 businesses, loss of 334.1 acres of active farmland, landlocking of 65 acres of land within 10 property tracts, bisecting of 1,263 acres of property within 12 property tracts, loss of 3.64 acres of Category 1 and 2 wetlands from 24 wetlands and 0.4 acre of Category 3 wetland at one wetland site, loss of 12,765 feet of low- to moderate-quality natural stream channel due to the construction of 23 stream crossings, displacement of 67.3 acres of woodland habitat and 69.1 acres of floodplain, and minor encroachment on potential habitat for threatened and endangered species. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0454D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040046, 672 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-03-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ohio KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+161%2F37+IMPROVEMENT%2C+FRANKLIN+AND+LICKING+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=SR+161%2F37+IMPROVEMENT%2C+FRANKLIN+AND+LICKING+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota. Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36350183; 10599-040045_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36359250; 10590-040035_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36354275; 10590-040035_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36354196; 10590-040035_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36351807; 10590-040035_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36350506; 10590-040035_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36350271; 10590-040035_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36349277; 10590-040035_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AIRCRAFT CONVERSION OF THE 167TH AIRLIFT WING, WEST VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD, EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL AIRPORT, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36434207; 10588 AB - PURPOSE: The conversion of the existing fleet of C-130H transportation aircraft used by the 167th Airlift Wing of the West Virginia National Guard to the larger C-5 transport aircraft is proposed. The new C-5 fleet would be stationed at the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport (EWVRA) in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report developed by the Department of Defense documented a need for an increase in strategic airlift capability while decreasing tactical airlift assets. Moreover, the C-130H fleet is nearing the end of its usable lifespan. Key issues identified during EIS scoping include those associated with noise impacts of the C-5 operations relative to those of C-130H aircraft, adjacent land uses, and socioeconomic factors. Three location alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed conversion would require the construction of new aircraft hangars and related maintenance and training facilities, the lengthening of existing Runway 08/26, and closure of Runway 17 /35. Ancillary facilities would include a fuel cell dock and a corrosion control dock. In addition, the action would require the acquisition of land via lease. Approximately 133 acres of land would be acquired from EWVRA to facilitate construction necessary to support the new aircraft and the revised mission of the 167th Airlift Wing. An extensive construction program would be required to provide the unique mix of facilities and support capabilities associated with the C-5, the largest cargo aircraft in the Air Force inventory. Ultimately, the unit would maintain and operate an inventory of 10 C-5 aircraft. The proposed integration of the new fleet and the decommissioning of the C-130H fleet would take place over a five-year period. All C-130H aircraft would be returned to the Air Force for relocation to other units; these aircraft would replace older C-130 aircraft, resulting in a net decrease in the Air Force C-130 inventory. No dual aircraft operations would occur, and aircraft activity would be limited at EWVRA for approximately one year. In addition to the proposed action, five other conceptual Airlift Wing design alternatives were developed to accommodate long-range mission requirements associated with the beddown of a C-5 strategic airlift mission at EWVRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Replacement of the C-130H aircraft with a C-5 fleet would increase the strategic airlift capacity of the U.S. military, while saving Department of Defense resources by decreasing tactical airlift assets. The ability of the military to rapidly deploy troops and materiel would be significantly improved, enhancing the country's ability to defend itself against foreign and domestic military threats. The new wing would result in the creation of additional jobs in the Martinsburg area and in the expansion of the area economy by 42 percent. Aircraft air pollutant emissions would decline significantly compared to those of C-130H emission levels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and facility siting in general would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including a very small amount of wetlands. Noise generated by aircraft operation would exceed federal standards within the vicinity of 85 residences, and 10 residents would lie within the runway protection zone; residents living within these housing units would be affected by 564 Airlift Wing operations per year. Safety concerns associated with aircraft operations would increase the airport's incompatibility with local land uses. New facilities would increase the demand for utilities and the associated infrastructure in the area. The increase in the extent of impervious surface would contribute additional stormwater runoff to local receiving surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). JF - EPA number: 040033, 297 pages, January 21, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Employment KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Operations (Air Force) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - West Virginia KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36434207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AIRCRAFT+CONVERSION+OF+THE+167TH+AIRLIFT+WING%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+NATIONAL+GUARD%2C+EASTERN+WEST+VIRGINIA+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+MARTINSBURG%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=AIRCRAFT+CONVERSION+OF+THE+167TH+AIRLIFT+WING%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+NATIONAL+GUARD%2C+EASTERN+WEST+VIRGINIA+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+MARTINSBURG%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Air Force, Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia; AF N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 21, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AIRCRAFT CONVERSION OF THE 167TH AIRLIFT WING, WEST VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD, EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL AIRPORT, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AIRCRAFT CONVERSION OF THE 167TH AIRLIFT WING, WEST VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD, EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL AIRPORT, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36349209; 10588-040033_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The conversion of the existing fleet of C-130H transportation aircraft used by the 167th Airlift Wing of the West Virginia National Guard to the larger C-5 transport aircraft is proposed. The new C-5 fleet would be stationed at the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport (EWVRA) in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report developed by the Department of Defense documented a need for an increase in strategic airlift capability while decreasing tactical airlift assets. Moreover, the C-130H fleet is nearing the end of its usable lifespan. Key issues identified during EIS scoping include those associated with noise impacts of the C-5 operations relative to those of C-130H aircraft, adjacent land uses, and socioeconomic factors. Three location alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed conversion would require the construction of new aircraft hangars and related maintenance and training facilities, the lengthening of existing Runway 08/26, and closure of Runway 17 /35. Ancillary facilities would include a fuel cell dock and a corrosion control dock. In addition, the action would require the acquisition of land via lease. Approximately 133 acres of land would be acquired from EWVRA to facilitate construction necessary to support the new aircraft and the revised mission of the 167th Airlift Wing. An extensive construction program would be required to provide the unique mix of facilities and support capabilities associated with the C-5, the largest cargo aircraft in the Air Force inventory. Ultimately, the unit would maintain and operate an inventory of 10 C-5 aircraft. The proposed integration of the new fleet and the decommissioning of the C-130H fleet would take place over a five-year period. All C-130H aircraft would be returned to the Air Force for relocation to other units; these aircraft would replace older C-130 aircraft, resulting in a net decrease in the Air Force C-130 inventory. No dual aircraft operations would occur, and aircraft activity would be limited at EWVRA for approximately one year. In addition to the proposed action, five other conceptual Airlift Wing design alternatives were developed to accommodate long-range mission requirements associated with the beddown of a C-5 strategic airlift mission at EWVRA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Replacement of the C-130H aircraft with a C-5 fleet would increase the strategic airlift capacity of the U.S. military, while saving Department of Defense resources by decreasing tactical airlift assets. The ability of the military to rapidly deploy troops and materiel would be significantly improved, enhancing the country's ability to defend itself against foreign and domestic military threats. The new wing would result in the creation of additional jobs in the Martinsburg area and in the expansion of the area economy by 42 percent. Aircraft air pollutant emissions would decline significantly compared to those of C-130H emission levels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and facility siting in general would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including a very small amount of wetlands. Noise generated by aircraft operation would exceed federal standards within the vicinity of 85 residences, and 10 residents would lie within the runway protection zone; residents living within these housing units would be affected by 564 Airlift Wing operations per year. Safety concerns associated with aircraft operations would increase the airport's incompatibility with local land uses. New facilities would increase the demand for utilities and the associated infrastructure in the area. The increase in the extent of impervious surface would contribute additional stormwater runoff to local receiving surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). JF - EPA number: 040033, 297 pages, January 21, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality KW - Employment KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Military Operations (Air Force) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - West Virginia KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AIRCRAFT+CONVERSION+OF+THE+167TH+AIRLIFT+WING%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+NATIONAL+GUARD%2C+EASTERN+WEST+VIRGINIA+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+MARTINSBURG%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=AIRCRAFT+CONVERSION+OF+THE+167TH+AIRLIFT+WING%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+NATIONAL+GUARD%2C+EASTERN+WEST+VIRGINIA+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+MARTINSBURG%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Air Force, Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia; AF N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 21, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JAMESTOWN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NORTH KINGSTOWN AND JAMESTOWN, RHODE ISLAND (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1981. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - JAMESTOWN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NORTH KINGSTOWN AND JAMESTOWN, RHODE ISLAND (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1981. AN - 36349915; 10567-040010_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of the old Jamestown Bridge in Kingstown and Jamestown, Rhode Island is proposed. A new Jamestown-Verrazzano Bridge was constructed in 1992. The old Jamestown Bridge was intended to be removed under the Jamestown Bridge Replacement Project, but has not yet been removed. Since the construction of the new bridge, new information regarding the demolition of the old bridge has prompted the need to evaluate options for debris disposal. Three alternatives are considered in this final supplemental EIS. While the alternatives involve the same process for bridge demolition, they differ in the method of disposal of the resulting debris. The options for disposal include landfill disposal, use of bridge debris to create artificial reefs in coastal waters, and disposal of steel debris at a landfill and use of concrete to create artificial reefs in coastal waters. The artificial reef alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. Estimated coast of the preferred alternative is $16 million to $20 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Use of the bridge debris to create artificial reef habitat would offer long-term benefits due to the creation and enhancement of marine habitat. The reefs would enhance recreational angling and sport diving opportunities. The reef alternative would cost significantly less than the landfill disposal alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the destruction of the historically significant old Jamestown Bridge. Short-term project impacts would include noise and air pollutant emissions as well as minor disturbance of existing marine resources during disposal of bridge materials to create reef habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For abstracts of the draft and final environmental impact statements (EISs) and the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 79-0686D, Volume 3, Number 7; 81-0790F, Volume 5, Number 10; and 86-0206D, Volume 10, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040010, Final Supplemental EIS and Appendices A and B--141 pages and maps, Appendices C-H--371 pages and maps, January 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-RI-EIS-79-01-FS KW - Bridges KW - Coastal Zones KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Rhode Island KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JAMESTOWN+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+KINGSTOWN+AND+JAMESTOWN%2C+RHODE+ISLAND+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1981.&rft.title=JAMESTOWN+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+KINGSTOWN+AND+JAMESTOWN%2C+RHODE+ISLAND+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1981.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Providence, Rhode Island; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JAMESTOWN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NORTH KINGSTOWN AND JAMESTOWN, RHODE ISLAND (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1981. AN - 16367396; 10567 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of the old Jamestown Bridge in Kingstown and Jamestown, Rhode Island is proposed. A new Jamestown-Verrazzano Bridge was constructed in 1992. The old Jamestown Bridge was intended to be removed under the Jamestown Bridge Replacement Project, but has not yet been removed. Since the construction of the new bridge, new information regarding the demolition of the old bridge has prompted the need to evaluate options for debris disposal. Three alternatives are considered in this final supplemental EIS. While the alternatives involve the same process for bridge demolition, they differ in the method of disposal of the resulting debris. The options for disposal include landfill disposal, use of bridge debris to create artificial reefs in coastal waters, and disposal of steel debris at a landfill and use of concrete to create artificial reefs in coastal waters. The artificial reef alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. Estimated coast of the preferred alternative is $16 million to $20 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Use of the bridge debris to create artificial reef habitat would offer long-term benefits due to the creation and enhancement of marine habitat. The reefs would enhance recreational angling and sport diving opportunities. The reef alternative would cost significantly less than the landfill disposal alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the destruction of the historically significant old Jamestown Bridge. Short-term project impacts would include noise and air pollutant emissions as well as minor disturbance of existing marine resources during disposal of bridge materials to create reef habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For abstracts of the draft and final environmental impact statements (EISs) and the draft supplement to the final EIS, see 79-0686D, Volume 3, Number 7; 81-0790F, Volume 5, Number 10; and 86-0206D, Volume 10, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040010, Final Supplemental EIS and Appendices A and B--141 pages and maps, Appendices C-H--371 pages and maps, January 9, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-RI-EIS-79-01-FS KW - Bridges KW - Coastal Zones KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reefs KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Rhode Island KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JAMESTOWN+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+KINGSTOWN+AND+JAMESTOWN%2C+RHODE+ISLAND+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1981.&rft.title=JAMESTOWN+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NORTH+KINGSTOWN+AND+JAMESTOWN%2C+RHODE+ISLAND+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1981.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Providence, Rhode Island; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 100 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670655; 10559-2_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 100 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 99 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670647; 10559-2_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 99 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 98 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670639; 10559-2_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 98 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 97 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670630; 10559-2_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 97 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 96 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670623; 10559-2_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 96 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 40 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670615; 10559-2_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 39 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670608; 10559-2_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670599; 10559-2_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670588; 10559-2_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670554; 10559-2_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670519; 10559-2_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670509; 10559-2_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670496; 10559-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670482; 10559-2_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670475; 10559-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670469; 10559-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670461; 10559-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670452; 10559-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670446; 10559-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670439; 10559-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670434; 10559-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670429; 10559-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670423; 10559-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670415; 10559-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 101 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670388; 10559-2_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 101 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670283; 10559-2_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670268; 10559-2_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670082; 10559-2_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 95 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 94 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670078; 10559-2_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 94 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 93 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670073; 10559-2_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 93 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670067; 10559-2_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 89 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670062; 10559-2_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 88 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 87 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670056; 10559-2_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 87 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670051; 10559-2_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 42 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670047; 10559-2_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670037; 10559-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670032; 10559-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670028; 10559-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670022; 10559-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670017; 10559-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670006; 10559-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670001; 10559-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898670001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669997; 10559-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669994; 10559-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669988; 10559-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669958; 10559-2_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 104 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669952; 10559-2_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 103 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 92 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669948; 10559-2_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 92 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669946; 10559-2_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 90 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669945; 10559-2_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669944; 10559-2_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669942; 10559-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669941; 10559-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669940; 10559-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 85 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669938; 10559-2_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 85 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669937; 10559-2_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 83 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669936; 10559-2_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 83 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 82 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669935; 10559-2_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 82 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 81 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669934; 10559-2_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669933; 10559-2_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 79 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669932; 10559-2_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669931; 10559-2_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 78 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 77 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669930; 10559-2_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 76 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669929; 10559-2_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669927; 10559-2_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 73 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669926; 10559-2_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669925; 10559-2_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669924; 10559-2_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669923; 10559-2_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 72 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 71 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669922; 10559-2_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669921; 10559-2_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669920; 10559-2_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669919; 10559-2_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669918; 10559-2_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 68 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669917; 10559-2_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669916; 10559-2_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669915; 10559-2_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669913; 10559-2_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669912; 10559-2_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669911; 10559-2_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 65 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669910; 10559-2_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 46 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669908; 10559-2_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669907; 10559-2_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669906; 10559-2_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669905; 10559-2_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669904; 10559-2_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669903; 10559-2_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 45 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669894; 10559-2_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669893; 10559-2_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898669893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 16366228; 10559 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some waterbodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An accurate method for the determination of carboxyhemoglobin in postmortem blood using GC-TCD. AN - 71691478; 14987426 AB - During the investigation of aviation accidents, postmortem samples from accident victims are submitted to the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute for toxicological analysis. In order to determine if an accident victim was exposed to an in-flight/postcrash fire or faulty heating/exhaust system, the analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) is conducted. Although our laboratory predominantly uses a spectrophotometric method for the determination of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb), we consider it essential to confirm with a second technique based on a different analytical principle. Our laboratory encountered difficulties with many of our postmortem samples while employing a commonly used GC method. We believed these problems were due to elevated methemoglobin (MetHb) concentration in our specimens. MetHb does not bind CO; therefore, elevated MetHb levels will result in a loss of CO-binding capacity. Because most commonly employed GC methods determine %COHb from a ratio of unsaturated blood to CO-saturated blood, a loss of CO-binding capacity will result in an erroneously high %COHb value. Our laboratory has developed a new GC method for the determination of %COHb that incorporates sodium dithionite, which will reduce any MetHb present to Hb. Using blood controls ranging from 1% to 67% COHb, we found no statistically significant differences between %COHb results from our new GC method and our spectrophotometric method. To validate the new GC method, postmortem samples were analyzed with our existing spectrophotometric method, a GC method commonly used without reducing agent, and our new GC method with the addition of sodium dithionite. As expected, we saw errors up to and exceeding 50% when comparing the unreduced GC results with our spectrophotometric method. With our new GC procedure, the error was virtually eliminated. JF - Journal of analytical toxicology AU - Lewis, Russell J AU - Johnson, Robert D AU - Canfield, Dennis V AD - Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory, AAM-610, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125, USA. PY - 2004 SP - 59 EP - 62 VL - 28 IS - 1 SN - 0146-4760, 0146-4760 KW - Dithionite KW - 14844-07-6 KW - Methemoglobin KW - 9008-37-1 KW - Carboxyhemoglobin KW - 9061-29-4 KW - Index Medicus KW - Mass Spectrometry KW - Autopsy KW - Methemoglobin -- chemistry KW - Humans KW - Dithionite -- chemistry KW - Thermal Conductivity KW - Carboxyhemoglobin -- analysis KW - Forensic Medicine -- methods KW - Chromatography, Gas -- methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71691478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+analytical+toxicology&rft.atitle=An+accurate+method+for+the+determination+of+carboxyhemoglobin+in+postmortem+blood+using+GC-TCD.&rft.au=Lewis%2C+Russell+J%3BJohnson%2C+Robert+D%3BCanfield%2C+Dennis+V&rft.aulast=Lewis&rft.aufirst=Russell&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=59&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+analytical+toxicology&rft.issn=01464760&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-09-13 N1 - Date created - 2004-02-27 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A formulation of directivity for earthquake sources using isochrone theory AN - 51780776; 2004-069430 JF - Open-File Report - U. S. Geological Survey AU - Spudich, Paul AU - Brian, S J AU - Graves, Robert W AU - Collins, Nancy AU - Somerville, Paul Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 54 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA SN - 0196-1497, 0196-1497 KW - P-waves KW - body waves KW - magnitude KW - elastic waves KW - dip-slip faults KW - strike-slip faults KW - isochrons KW - wave amplification KW - geometry KW - rupture KW - ground motion KW - velocity KW - seismic waves KW - USGS KW - earthquakes KW - S-waves KW - faults KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51780776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Open-File+Report+-+U.+S.+Geological+Survey&rft.atitle=A+formulation+of+directivity+for+earthquake+sources+using+isochrone+theory&rft.au=Spudich%2C+Paul%3BBrian%2C+S+J%3BGraves%2C+Robert+W%3BCollins%2C+Nancy%3BSomerville%2C+Paul&rft.aulast=Spudich&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Open-File+Report+-+U.+S.+Geological+Survey&rft.issn=01961497&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1268/ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/browse/usgs-publications/OFR LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Aug. 30, 2004; includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - XGROAG N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - body waves; dip-slip faults; earthquakes; elastic waves; faults; geometry; ground motion; isochrons; magnitude; P-waves; rupture; S-waves; seismic waves; strike-slip faults; USGS; velocity; wave amplification ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Tentative correlation between CIPW normin pl (total plagioclase) and Los Angeles wear in Precambrian Midcontinental granites; examples from Missouri and Oklahoma, with applications and limitations for use AN - 51765115; 2005-008553 JF - U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin AU - Davis, George H A2 - Bliss, James D. A2 - Moyle, Phillip R. A2 - Long, Keith R. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 12 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA SN - 8755-531X, 8755-531X KW - United States KW - silicates KW - plagioclase KW - aggregate KW - asphalt KW - Precambrian KW - Missouri KW - Midcontinent KW - cost KW - concrete KW - bitumens KW - Oklahoma KW - utilization KW - framework silicates KW - USGS KW - granite deposits KW - geochemistry KW - feldspar group KW - roads KW - construction materials KW - 28A:Economic geology, geology of nonmetal deposits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51765115?accountid=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=U.+S.+Geological+Survey+Bulletin&rft.atitle=Tentative+correlation+between+CIPW+normin+pl+%28total+plagioclase%29+and+Los+Angeles+wear+in+Precambrian+Midcontinental+granites%3B+examples+from+Missouri+and+Oklahoma%2C+with+applications+and+limitations+for+use&rft.au=Davis%2C+George+H&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=George&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=U.+S.+Geological+Survey+Bulletin&rft.issn=8755531X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2209-g/b2209g.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 17 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 8 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Dec. 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aggregate; asphalt; bitumens; concrete; construction materials; cost; feldspar group; framework silicates; geochemistry; granite deposits; Midcontinent; Missouri; Oklahoma; plagioclase; Precambrian; roads; silicates; United States; USGS; utilization ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Surface roughness effects on turbulent boundary layers on a flat plate located in an open channel AN - 51744382; 2005-017484 AB - The effect of surface roughness on turbulent boundary layers on a flat plate located in an open channel is investigated at moderately high Fourcade numbers (0.25< Fr<1.1) and low momentum thickness Reynolds numbers (550